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

comprehensive-interpretation-of-&amp Case Commentaries

From “Significant Harm” to “Any Disadvantage”:  Fourth-Circuit Adoption of Muldrow’s Adverse-Action Standard in Herkert v. Bisignano

From “Significant Harm” to “Any Disadvantage”: Fourth-Circuit Adoption of Muldrow’s Adverse-Action Standard in Herkert v. Bisignano

Date: Aug 19, 2025
From “Significant Harm” to “Any Disadvantage”: Fourth-Circuit Adoption of Muldrow’s Adverse-Action Standard in Herkert v. Bisignano 1. Introduction Mary Frances Herkert, a disabled employee of the...
“Removal Is Not Enough” – Fourth Circuit Clarifies Mootness, Jurisdiction, and Standing in Terrorist Watch-List Litigation (Saadiq Long v. Bondi, 2025)

“Removal Is Not Enough” – Fourth Circuit Clarifies Mootness, Jurisdiction, and Standing in Terrorist Watch-List Litigation (Saadiq Long v. Bondi, 2025)

Date: Aug 19, 2025
“Removal Is Not Enough” – Fourth Circuit Clarifies Mootness, Jurisdiction, and Standing in Terrorist Watch-List Litigation I. Introduction In Saadiq Long v. Pamela Bondi, No. 24-1369/1403 (4th Cir....
Long v. Bondi: Watchlist-Driven Credential Denials Confer Standing and § 46110 Does Not Bar District-Court Review Once TSA Orders Are Superseded

Long v. Bondi: Watchlist-Driven Credential Denials Confer Standing and § 46110 Does Not Bar District-Court Review Once TSA Orders Are Superseded

Date: Aug 19, 2025
Long v. Bondi: Watchlist-Driven Credential Denials Confer Standing and § 46110 Does Not Bar District-Court Review Once TSA Orders Are Superseded Introduction The Fourth Circuit’s published decision...
The “Intentional-Withdrawal Waiver” Doctrine – Fourth Circuit confirms that a party who withdraws proffered evidence cannot challenge its exclusion on appeal (United States v. Breeland)

The “Intentional-Withdrawal Waiver” Doctrine – Fourth Circuit confirms that a party who withdraws proffered evidence cannot challenge its exclusion on appeal (United States v. Breeland)

Date: Aug 19, 2025
The “Intentional-Withdrawal Waiver” Doctrine Fourth Circuit confirms that a party who withdraws proffered evidence cannot challenge its exclusion on appeal (United States v. Bernard K. Breeland, Jr.,...
“Beyond Miller”: The Fourth Circuit Declines to Extend Juvenile-Sentencing Protections to 18-Year-Old Offenders and Clarifies Evidentiary & Joinder Standards in Large-Scale VICAR Prosecutions – A Commentary on United States v. Duglas Ferrera (2025)

“Beyond Miller”: The Fourth Circuit Declines to Extend Juvenile-Sentencing Protections to 18-Year-Old Offenders and Clarifies Evidentiary & Joinder Standards in Large-Scale VICAR Prosecutions – A Commentary on United States v. Duglas Ferrera (2025)

Date: Aug 19, 2025
“Beyond Miller”: The Fourth Circuit Declines to Extend Juvenile-Sentencing Protections to 18-Year-Old Offenders and Clarifies Evidentiary & Joinder Standards in Large-Scale VICAR Prosecutions – A...
No Safe Harbor in Fear: Fourth Circuit Narrows Duress Defence in Gang-Related VICAR Prosecutions

No Safe Harbor in Fear: Fourth Circuit Narrows Duress Defence in Gang-Related VICAR Prosecutions

Date: Aug 19, 2025
No Safe Harbor in Fear: Fourth Circuit Narrows Duress Defence in Gang-Related VICAR Prosecutions 1. Introduction United States v. Elmer Martinez (consolidated appeals Nos. 22-4745, 22-4746, 23-4005,...
United States v. Martinez (2025): Fourth Circuit Defines the Outer Limits of the Duress Defence in VICAR Murders and Clarifies Knock-and-Talk Doctrine

United States v. Martinez (2025): Fourth Circuit Defines the Outer Limits of the Duress Defence in VICAR Murders and Clarifies Knock-and-Talk Doctrine

Date: Aug 19, 2025
United States v. Martinez (4th Cir. 2025): Clarifying the Boundaries of Duress under 18 U.S.C. § 1959, the Admissibility of Gang-Violence Evidence, and the Proper Scope of Knock-and-Talk Searches...

Fourth Circuit Narrows “Gang-Duress” and Confirms Admissibility of Expert Gang Testimony after Crawford:
A Commentary on United States v. Pablo Velasco Barrera (2025)

Fourth Circuit Narrows “Gang-Duress” and Confirms Admissibility of Expert Gang Testimony after Crawford: A Commentary on United States v. Pablo Velasco Barrera (2025)

Date: Aug 19, 2025
Fourth Circuit Narrows “Gang-Duress” and Confirms Admissibility of Expert Gang Testimony after Crawford A Comprehensive Commentary on United States v. Pablo Velasco Barrera, 92 F.4th ___ (4th Cir....
“No Safe Harbor in Gang Coercion” – The Fourth Circuit’s Definitive Limits on Duress, Evidence, and Sentencing in United States v. Ronald Contreras (2025)

“No Safe Harbor in Gang Coercion” – The Fourth Circuit’s Definitive Limits on Duress, Evidence, and Sentencing in United States v. Ronald Contreras (2025)

Date: Aug 18, 2025
“No Safe Harbor in Gang Coercion” – The Fourth Circuit’s Definitive Limits on Duress, Evidence, and Sentencing in United States v. Ronald Contreras (2025) 1. Introduction United States v. Ronald...
United States v. Crawford: Clarifying the Obstruction-of-Justice Enhancement and Reaffirming Limits on “Reasonable Doubt” Definitions

United States v. Crawford: Clarifying the Obstruction-of-Justice Enhancement and Reaffirming Limits on “Reasonable Doubt” Definitions

Date: Aug 18, 2025
United States v. Crawford: Clarifying the Obstruction-of-Justice Enhancement and Reaffirming Limits on “Reasonable Doubt” Definitions 1. Introduction United States v. Stephen C. Crawford, No. 24-4243...
Rivas de Nolasco v. Bondi: The Fourth Circuit Affirms § 1252(b)(1) as a Non-Jurisdictional Claims-Processing Rule and Reinforces Nexus Standards for Particular Social Group Claims

Rivas de Nolasco v. Bondi: The Fourth Circuit Affirms § 1252(b)(1) as a Non-Jurisdictional Claims-Processing Rule and Reinforces Nexus Standards for Particular Social Group Claims

Date: Aug 18, 2025
Rivas de Nolasco v. Bondi: The Fourth Circuit Affirms § 1252(b)(1) as a Non-Jurisdictional Claims-Processing Rule and Reinforces Nexus Standards for Particular Social Group Claims Introduction In...
United States v. McCoy: The Tenth Circuit Clarifies “Incapacitation” and Cumulative-Circumstance Analysis under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)

United States v. McCoy: The Tenth Circuit Clarifies “Incapacitation” and Cumulative-Circumstance Analysis under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)

Date: Aug 18, 2025
United States v. McCoy: The Tenth Circuit Clarifies “Incapacitation” and Cumulative-Circumstance Analysis under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) Introduction United States v. McCoy, No. 25-6039 (10th Cir....
“Prevailing-On-The-Merits” Reaffirmed: Full Attorney-Fee Awards Under AS 09.60.010(c) after Donkel & Cade v. Alaska DNR

“Prevailing-On-The-Merits” Reaffirmed: Full Attorney-Fee Awards Under AS 09.60.010(c) after Donkel & Cade v. Alaska DNR

Date: Aug 18, 2025
“Prevailing On The Merits” Reaffirmed: Full Attorney-Fee Awards Under AS 09.60.010(c) after Donkel & Cade v. State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources 1. Introduction The Alaska Supreme...
Reaffirming Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies and Full-Faith-and-Credit for Tribal Custody Orders under ICWA – Commentary on J.A. (Father) v. Native Village of Tanana (Alaska 2025)

Reaffirming Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies and Full-Faith-and-Credit for Tribal Custody Orders under ICWA – Commentary on J.A. (Father) v. Native Village of Tanana (Alaska 2025)

Date: Aug 18, 2025
Reaffirming Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies and Full-Faith-and-Credit for Tribal Custody Orders under ICWA Commentary on J.A. (Father) v. Native Village of Tanana Supreme Court of Alaska (No. 2099, 13...
“Tracing Trumps Ambiguity” – Alaska Supreme Court Re-Affirms the Burden to Trace Separate Contributions Despite an Ambiguous Prenuptial Agreement

“Tracing Trumps Ambiguity” – Alaska Supreme Court Re-Affirms the Burden to Trace Separate Contributions Despite an Ambiguous Prenuptial Agreement

Date: Aug 18, 2025
“Tracing Trumps Ambiguity” – Alaska Supreme Court Re-Affirms the Burden to Trace Separate Contributions Despite an Ambiguous Prenuptial Agreement Introduction In Fairbanks v. Fox, No. 2100 (Alaska...
Reserved Easements and the “Notice-to-Exercise” Rule: Commentary on Bruce H. Clark & Elaine Sullivan v. Bryce & Alisha Fuller, 2025 WY 92

Reserved Easements and the “Notice-to-Exercise” Rule: Commentary on Bruce H. Clark & Elaine Sullivan v. Bryce & Alisha Fuller, 2025 WY 92

Date: Aug 18, 2025
Reserved Easements and the “Notice-to-Exercise” Rule Supreme Court of Wyoming clarifies that a plat’s reservation clause does not ripen into an easement unless the grantor affirmatively notifies the...
Successor HOA Authority and the “Futility” Threshold for Pleading Amendments — A Comment on Dee Conger v. AVR Homeowner’s Association, Inc. (2025 WY 91)

Successor HOA Authority and the “Futility” Threshold for Pleading Amendments — A Comment on Dee Conger v. AVR Homeowner’s Association, Inc. (2025 WY 91)

Date: Aug 18, 2025
Successor HOA Authority and the “Futility” Threshold for Pleading Amendments — A Structured Commentary on Dee Conger, Trustee v. AVR Homeowner’s Association, Inc., 2025 WY 91 (Wyo. Sup. Ct. Aug. 13,...
Supreme Court Clarifies Due-Process Safeguards in Administrative Attorney Suspensions Under Pa.R.D.E. 219

Supreme Court Clarifies Due-Process Safeguards in Administrative Attorney Suspensions Under Pa.R.D.E. 219

Date: Aug 18, 2025
Supreme Court Clarifies Due-Process Safeguards in Administrative Attorney Suspensions Under Pa.R.D.E. 219 1. Introduction On 13 August 2025 the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued an order entitled...
Clarifying the Evidentiary Burden for Asserting Lawful Permanent Resident Status in Removal Proceedings – Commentary on Dynza Mackey v. Attorney General (3d Cir. 2025)

Clarifying the Evidentiary Burden for Asserting Lawful Permanent Resident Status in Removal Proceedings – Commentary on Dynza Mackey v. Attorney General (3d Cir. 2025)

Date: Aug 18, 2025
Clarifying the Evidentiary Burden for Asserting Lawful Permanent Resident Status in Removal Proceedings – Commentary on Dynza Mackey v. Attorney General of the United States (3d Cir. 2025) 1....
“Taylor Post-Shinn Doctrine” – The Third Circuit Narrows Rule 60(b)(6) Habeas Relief and Clarifies ‘Reasonable Time’ Post-Martinez

“Taylor Post-Shinn Doctrine” – The Third Circuit Narrows Rule 60(b)(6) Habeas Relief and Clarifies ‘Reasonable Time’ Post-Martinez

Date: Aug 18, 2025
“Taylor Post-Shinn Doctrine” – The Third Circuit Narrows Rule 60(b)(6) Habeas Relief and Clarifies ‘Reasonable Time’ Post-Martinez Introduction In Paul Gamboa Taylor v. Commissioner of Pennsylvania...
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