Log In
  • US
  • UK & Ireland
CaseMine Logo
Please enter at least 3 characters.
Parallel Search is an AI-driven legal research functionality that uses natural language understanding to find conceptually relevant case law, even without exact keyword matches.
Hi, I'm AMICUS. Your GPT powered virtual legal assistant. Let's chat.
  • Parallel Search NEW
  • CaseIQ
  • AMICUS (Powered by GPT)
  • Supreme Court
  • High Courts
    All High Courts
    Allahabad High Court
    Andhra Pradesh High Court
    Bombay High Court
    Calcutta High Court
    Chhattisgarh High Court
    Delhi High Court
    Gauhati High Court
    Gujarat High Court
    Himachal Pradesh High Court
    Jammu and Kashmir High Court
    Jharkhand High Court
    Karnataka High Court
    Kerala High Court
    Madhya Pradesh High Court
    Madras High Court
    Manipur High Court
    Meghalaya High Court
    Orissa High Court
    Patna High Court
    Punjab & Haryana High Court
    Rajasthan High Court
    Sikkim High Court
    Telangana High Court
    Tripura High Court
    Uttarakhand High Court
Log In Sign Up India Judgments
  • US
  • UK & Ireland

Alert

How is this helpful for me?

  • Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to:
    1. Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
    2. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
  • Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
  • The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

Create your profile now
  • Commentaries
  • Judgments

clarifying-the-& Case Commentaries

Gardner v. Flagstar: Sixth Circuit Rejects “Failure-to-Read” Defense and Requires Jury Trial When Bank-Fee Contracts Are Ambiguous

Gardner v. Flagstar: Sixth Circuit Rejects “Failure-to-Read” Defense and Requires Jury Trial When Bank-Fee Contracts Are Ambiguous

Date: Jun 23, 2025
Gardner v. Flagstar: Sixth Circuit Rejects “Failure-to-Read” Defense and Requires Jury Trial When Bank-Fee Contracts Are Ambiguous 1. Introduction In Veronica Gardner v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, No....

        Davenport v. Pata – When a Mere “Referral Note” Is Not Enough:
        The Tenth Circuit Holds that Failure to Follow Internal Referral Procedures
        Can Constitute Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs

Davenport v. Pata – When a Mere “Referral Note” Is Not Enough: The Tenth Circuit Holds that Failure to Follow Internal Referral Procedures Can Constitute Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs

Date: Jun 23, 2025
Davenport v. Pata – When a Mere “Referral Note” Is Not Enough: The Tenth Circuit Holds that Failure to Follow Internal Referral Procedures Can Constitute Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical...
United States v. Charley: Re-affirming Appellate Deference to a District Court’s Balancing of § 3553(a) Factors

United States v. Charley: Re-affirming Appellate Deference to a District Court’s Balancing of § 3553(a) Factors

Date: Jun 23, 2025
United States v. Charley: Re-affirming Appellate Deference to a District Court’s Balancing of § 3553(a) Factors in Substantive-Reasonableness Review Introduction In United States v. Charley,...
Culp v. Caudill: Seventh Circuit Clarifies Local Rule 56.1 Compliance and Affirms Broad Discretion on Costs in Mixed-Outcome Cases

Culp v. Caudill: Seventh Circuit Clarifies Local Rule 56.1 Compliance and Affirms Broad Discretion on Costs in Mixed-Outcome Cases

Date: Jun 23, 2025
Culp v. Caudill: Seventh Circuit Clarifies Local Rule 56.1 Compliance and Affirms Broad Discretion on Costs in Mixed-Outcome Cases Introduction In Carl Culp v. Scott Caudill, Nos. 23-2397 & 23-2398,...
Culp v. Woods: Seventh Circuit Re-Affirms Broad Discretion in Mixed-Outcome Cost Awards and Clarifies N.D. Indiana Local Rule 56.1 Compliance

Culp v. Woods: Seventh Circuit Re-Affirms Broad Discretion in Mixed-Outcome Cost Awards and Clarifies N.D. Indiana Local Rule 56.1 Compliance

Date: Jun 23, 2025
Culp v. Woods: Seventh Circuit Re-Affirms Broad Discretion in Mixed-Outcome Cost Awards and Clarifies N.D. Indiana Local Rule 56.1 Compliance Introduction On 20 June 2025 the U.S. Court of Appeals...
“Facial-Defense Strikes” under the PLRA: Detailed Commentary on Holmes v. Marion County Sheriff’s Office, No. 22-3032 (7th Cir. 2025)

“Facial-Defense Strikes” under the PLRA: Detailed Commentary on Holmes v. Marion County Sheriff’s Office, No. 22-3032 (7th Cir. 2025)

Date: Jun 23, 2025
“Facial-Defense Strikes” under the Prison Litigation Reform Act Commentary on Holmes v. Marion County Sheriff’s Office, No. 22-3032 (7th Cir. June 20 2025) 1. Introduction The Seventh Circuit’s...
Separating Damages from Fees: Seventh Circuit Clarifies Comparative-Fault Limits on Attorney-Fee Awards in Civil Contempt

Separating Damages from Fees: Seventh Circuit Clarifies Comparative-Fault Limits on Attorney-Fee Awards in Civil Contempt

Date: Jun 23, 2025
Separating Damages from Fees: Seventh Circuit Clarifies Comparative-Fault Limits on Attorney-Fee Awards in Civil Contempt 1. Introduction The Seventh Circuit’s decision in Jacqueline Sterling v....
“Incremental Punishment Re-affirmed”: United States v. Rolando Joel De Leon De Paz and the Seventh Circuit’s Endorsement of Robust Upward Variances for Serial § 1326 Offenders

“Incremental Punishment Re-affirmed”: United States v. Rolando Joel De Leon De Paz and the Seventh Circuit’s Endorsement of Robust Upward Variances for Serial § 1326 Offenders

Date: Jun 23, 2025
“Incremental Punishment Re-affirmed”: United States v. Rolando Joel De Leon De Paz and the Seventh Circuit’s Endorsement of Robust Upward Variances for Serial § 1326 Offenders 1. Introduction United...

First Circuit Tightens Evidentiary Bar for Economic-Loss and Consequential-Damages Awards, and Re-affirms the Narrow “Obstinacy” Standard for Fees: Commentary on Coco Rico, LLC v. Universal Insurance Co.

First Circuit Tightens Evidentiary Bar for Economic-Loss and Consequential-Damages Awards, and Re-affirms the Narrow “Obstinacy” Standard for Fees: Commentary on Coco Rico, LLC v. Universal Insurance Co.

Date: Jun 23, 2025
First Circuit Tightens Evidentiary Bar for Economic-Loss and Consequential-Damages Awards, and Re-affirms the Narrow “Obstinacy” Standard for Fees Introduction In Coco Rico, LLC v. Universal...

    Coco Rico, LLC v. Universal Insurance Co.: The First Circuit Tightens Evidentiary Standards
    for Consequential Damages and Caps Jury BI & EE Awards to the Proven Loss

Coco Rico, LLC v. Universal Insurance Co.: The First Circuit Tightens Evidentiary Standards for Consequential Damages and Caps Jury BI & EE Awards to the Proven Loss

Date: Jun 23, 2025
Coco Rico, LLC v. Universal Insurance Company (1st Cir. 2025): A Landmark on Evidentiary Rigor for Consequential Damages, Business-Interruption Caps, and “Obstinacy”–Based Fee Awards 1. Introduction...
“Commonsense Redressability” — Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA and the Expansion of Article III Standing

“Commonsense Redressability” — Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA and the Expansion of Article III Standing

Date: Jun 23, 2025
“Commonsense Redressability” — Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA and the Expansion of Article III Standing 1. Introduction Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency, 606...

        “No Retribution on Revocation” –  The Supervised-Release Principle in Esteras v. United States (2025)

“No Retribution on Revocation” – The Supervised-Release Principle in Esteras v. United States (2025)

Date: Jun 23, 2025
“No Retribution on Revocation” – The New Supervised-Release Principle in Esteras v. United States (606 U.S.___ 2025) I. Introduction On 20 June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Esteras v. United...
“Any Person Adversely Affected” Means What It Says:  FDA v. R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co. and the Expansion of Statutory Standing Under the Tobacco Control Act

“Any Person Adversely Affected” Means What It Says: FDA v. R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co. and the Expansion of Statutory Standing Under the Tobacco Control Act

Date: Jun 23, 2025
“Any Person Adversely Affected” Means What It Says: FDA v. R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (2025) and the Expansion of Statutory Standing Under the Tobacco Control Act 1. Introduction The United States...
Beyond “Minimum Contacts” – The U.S. Supreme Court Widens the Fifth-Amendment Horizon for Federal Personal-Jurisdiction in Anti-Terrorism Litigation

Beyond “Minimum Contacts” – The U.S. Supreme Court Widens the Fifth-Amendment Horizon for Federal Personal-Jurisdiction in Anti-Terrorism Litigation

Date: Jun 23, 2025
Beyond “Minimum Contacts” – The Fifth Amendment, Foreign Affairs, and the New Constitutional Standard for Federal Personal-Jurisdiction 1. Introduction In Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization,...
“Exclusive” No More?  McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. and the Re-Opening of District-Court Review under the Hobbs Act

“Exclusive” No More? McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. and the Re-Opening of District-Court Review under the Hobbs Act

Date: Jun 23, 2025
“Exclusive” No More? McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. and the Re-Opening of District-Court Review under the Hobbs Act 1. Introduction On 20 June 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court...
Stanley v. City of Sanford — Cementing a Temporal Limit on “Qualified Individual” Status under ADA Title I

Stanley v. City of Sanford — Cementing a Temporal Limit on “Qualified Individual” Status under ADA Title I

Date: Jun 23, 2025
Stanley v. City of Sanford (2025): The Supreme Court Imposes a Temporal Boundary on Who Qualifies as a “Qualified Individual” under ADA Title I 1. Introduction Stanley v. City of Sanford, 606 U.S....
Kilburn v. VCAM: Emotional-Distress Damages Now Recoverable for Negligent-Supervision Claims Without Proof of Physical Injury When the Underlying Wrong is an Intentional Tort

Kilburn v. VCAM: Emotional-Distress Damages Now Recoverable for Negligent-Supervision Claims Without Proof of Physical Injury When the Underlying Wrong is an Intentional Tort

Date: Jun 23, 2025
Kilburn v. VCAM Commentary: A New Path for Emotional-Distress Recovery in Negligent-Supervision Actions Introduction Ciara Kilburn & Brona Kilburn v. Bill Simmon & Vermont Community Access Media,...
Shaffer v. Northeast Kingdom Human Services: Vermont Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Comparative-Negligence Defenses Against Non-Parties

Shaffer v. Northeast Kingdom Human Services: Vermont Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Comparative-Negligence Defenses Against Non-Parties

Date: Jun 23, 2025
Shaffer v. Northeast Kingdom Human Services, Inc.: 2025 VT 31 – A New Limit on “Empty-Chair” Comparative Negligence in Vermont Introduction In Shaffer v. Northeast Kingdom Human Services, Inc., the...
“Control” Equals “Legal Right to Obtain”: Nebraska Supreme Court Tightens Discovery Obligations for LLC Members in Bajjuri v. Karney

“Control” Equals “Legal Right to Obtain”: Nebraska Supreme Court Tightens Discovery Obligations for LLC Members in Bajjuri v. Karney

Date: Jun 23, 2025
“Control” Equals “Legal Right to Obtain” Nebraska Supreme Court Tightens Discovery Obligations for LLC Members in Bajjuri v. Karney Introduction On 20 June 2025 the Nebraska Supreme Court, in Bajjuri...
“Sounds, Silence and Remorse” – State v. Vazquez and the Admissibility of Post-Incident Behaviour & Police-Interview Context Under Nebraska Evidence Law

“Sounds, Silence and Remorse” – State v. Vazquez and the Admissibility of Post-Incident Behaviour & Police-Interview Context Under Nebraska Evidence Law

Date: Jun 23, 2025
“Sounds, Silence and Remorse” – State v. Vazquez and the Admissibility of Post-Incident Behaviour & Police-Interview Context Under Nebraska Evidence Law 1. Introduction In State v. Vazquez, 319 Neb....
Previous   Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo
  • Watch Casemine overview Videos

Company

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Careers
  • Columns
  • Contact Us

Help

  • Pricing
  • Help & Support
  • Features
  • Workflow
  • Judgment Takedown Policy (India)
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases
  • Acts

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert