Log In
  • India
  • 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)
  • Federal
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Federal Circuit
    1st Circuit
    2d Circuit
    3d Circuit
    4th Circuit
    5th Circuit
    6th Circuit
    7th Circuit
    8th Circuit
    9th Circuit
    10th Circuit
    11th Circuit
    Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Special Courts
    Bankruptcy
  • State
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arkansas
    Arizona
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    District Of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia
    Guam
    Hawaii
    Iowa
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana
    Massachusetts
    Maryland
    Maine
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Missouri
    Mississippi
    Montana
    Nebraska
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    Northern Mariana Islands
    New Mexico
    Nevada
    New York
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Virginia
    Vermont
    Washington
    Wisconsin
    West Virginia
    Wyoming
Log In Sign Up US Judgments
  • India
  • 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

employment-status-of-minors-under-workers& Case Commentaries

Stipulations and Harmless Error: The Montana Supreme Court Refines Right-to-Counsel Violations, Tribal Transfer Motions, and ICWA Placement in In re I.R.S. & M.W.A.H.

Stipulations and Harmless Error: The Montana Supreme Court Refines Right-to-Counsel Violations, Tribal Transfer Motions, and ICWA Placement in In re I.R.S. & M.W.A.H.

Date: Jul 4, 2025
Stipulations and Harmless Error: The Montana Supreme Court Refines Right-to-Counsel Violations, Tribal Transfer Motions, and ICWA Placement in In re I.R.S. & M.W.A.H. Introduction On 1 July 2025 the...

    “More Than a Question”:  The Montana Supreme Court Clarifies that a Mere Inquiry
    Is Not a Motion to Transfer under MICWA § 41-3-1310 and Re-confirms the Narrow
    Scope of Relative Intervention in Indian Child Guardianships

“More Than a Question”: The Montana Supreme Court Clarifies that a Mere Inquiry Is Not a Motion to Transfer under MICWA § 41-3-1310 and Re-confirms the Narrow Scope of Relative Intervention in Indian Child Guardianships

Date: Jul 4, 2025
“More Than a Question”: The Montana Supreme Court Clarifies that a Mere Inquiry Is Not a Motion to Transfer under MICWA § 41-3-1310 and Re-confirms the Narrow Scope of Relative Intervention in Indian...
State v. Warr: Mandatory Second-Chance Withdrawal after Rejection of a Binding Plea Agreement under § 46-12-211(4), MCA

State v. Warr: Mandatory Second-Chance Withdrawal after Rejection of a Binding Plea Agreement under § 46-12-211(4), MCA

Date: Jul 4, 2025
State v. Warr: Mandatory Second-Chance Withdrawal after Rejection of a Binding Plea Agreement under § 46-12-211(4), MCA Introduction In State v. J. Warr, 2025 MT 138, the Montana Supreme Court...
State v. Welzel: Clarifying “Under the Order of the Court” for Credit on Time Spent in Residential Treatment Facilities

State v. Welzel: Clarifying “Under the Order of the Court” for Credit on Time Spent in Residential Treatment Facilities

Date: Jul 4, 2025
State v. Welzel: Clarifying “Under the Order of the Court” for Credit on Time Spent in Residential Treatment Facilities Introduction State v. Welzel, 2025 MT 136, is a decision of the Supreme Court...
Expanding Fee-Shifting under Montana’s UDJA: A Commentary on Upper Missouri Waterkeeper v. DNRC (2025)

Expanding Fee-Shifting under Montana’s UDJA: A Commentary on Upper Missouri Waterkeeper v. DNRC (2025)

Date: Jul 4, 2025
Expanding Fee-Shifting under Montana’s UDJA: A Detailed Commentary on Upper Missouri Waterkeeper v. Broadwater County & DNRC (2025 MT 137) 1. Introduction Upper Missouri Waterkeeper, several local...

        State v. Crist – Idaho Supreme Court Confirms Judicial Authority to Decide
        “Substantial Equivalency” Under SORA

State v. Crist – Idaho Supreme Court Confirms Judicial Authority to Decide “Substantial Equivalency” Under SORA

Date: Jul 4, 2025
“We Do, the Bureau May”: State v. Crist and the Court-Centric Rule for Determining Substantial Equivalency Under Idaho’s Sex Offender Registration Act Introduction State v. Crist, 50737 (Idaho July 1...
“Meaningful Review Revisited” –  South Hill Meat Lockers Inc. v. Idaho Transportation Department (Idaho 2025)

“Meaningful Review Revisited” – South Hill Meat Lockers Inc. v. Idaho Transportation Department (Idaho 2025)

Date: Jul 4, 2025
Meaningful Review Revisited: Idaho Supreme Court Narrows “Plan-or-Design Immunity” to Government Plans & Change Orders that Receive Actual, Documented Scrutiny South Hill Meat Lockers Inc. v. Idaho...
“Any Means Any”: Idaho Code § 49-456 Applies to All Vehicles Driven in Idaho — An In-Depth Commentary on State v. Sherwood (2025)

“Any Means Any”: Idaho Code § 49-456 Applies to All Vehicles Driven in Idaho — An In-Depth Commentary on State v. Sherwood (2025)

Date: Jul 4, 2025
“Any Means Any”: Idaho Code § 49-456 Applies to All Vehicles Driven in Idaho — A Comprehensive Commentary on State v. Sherwood (Idaho 2025) 1. Introduction Background. In State v. Sherwood, the Idaho...
Gallegos v. Gallegos – Wyoming Supreme Court Re-Affirms Strict Procedural Compliance for Pro Se Appellants

Gallegos v. Gallegos – Wyoming Supreme Court Re-Affirms Strict Procedural Compliance for Pro Se Appellants

Date: Jul 4, 2025
Gallegos v. Gallegos – Wyoming Supreme Court Re-Affirms Strict Procedural Compliance for Pro Se Appellants Introduction The Wyoming Supreme Court’s decision in Latoya L. Adams f/k/a Latoya L....
State v. Fletcher: Idaho Supreme Court Declares Drug-Dog “Free-Air” Sniffs Non-Searches and Re-Affirms the Bright-Line Automobile Exception

State v. Fletcher: Idaho Supreme Court Declares Drug-Dog “Free-Air” Sniffs Non-Searches and Re-Affirms the Bright-Line Automobile Exception

Date: Jul 4, 2025
State v. Fletcher: Idaho Supreme Court Declares Drug-Dog “Free-Air” Sniffs Non-Searches Under Article I § 17 and Re-Affirms the Bright-Line Automobile Exception 1. Introduction State v. Fletcher,...
State v. Popp: Narrowing “Reasonable Suspicion” When the Predicate Offense is Littering under Idaho Code § 18-7031

State v. Popp: Narrowing “Reasonable Suspicion” When the Predicate Offense is Littering under Idaho Code § 18-7031

Date: Jul 4, 2025
State v. Popp (2025): Narrowing “Reasonable Suspicion” When the Predicate Offense is Littering under Idaho Code § 18-7031 1. Introduction State v. Popp is the Idaho Supreme Court’s most recent...
Narrowing OV 7 After the 2015 Amendments: “Similarly Egregious” Conduct and an Intent-to-Heighten-Fear Requirement Highlighted in People v. Brownfield

Narrowing OV 7 After the 2015 Amendments: “Similarly Egregious” Conduct and an Intent-to-Heighten-Fear Requirement Highlighted in People v. Brownfield

Date: Jul 4, 2025
Narrowing OV 7 After the 2015 Amendments: “Similarly Egregious” Conduct and an Intent-to-Heighten-Fear Requirement Highlighted in People v. Brownfield Introduction This commentary analyzes the...
Certification Is Not a Vehicle to Revisit Settled Law: Michigan Supreme Court Declines to Answer Federal Certified Question on the Medical-Malpractice Damages Cap

Certification Is Not a Vehicle to Revisit Settled Law: Michigan Supreme Court Declines to Answer Federal Certified Question on the Medical-Malpractice Damages Cap

Date: Jul 4, 2025
Certification Is Not a Vehicle to Revisit Settled Law: Michigan Supreme Court Declines to Answer Federal Certified Question on the Medical-Malpractice Damages Cap Introduction This commentary...
No Do‑Overs for Pro Se Capital Defendants: Florida Supreme Court Applies Invited-Error and Colorable-Claim Gatekeeping to Foreclose Postconviction Mitigation Challenges

No Do‑Overs for Pro Se Capital Defendants: Florida Supreme Court Applies Invited-Error and Colorable-Claim Gatekeeping to Foreclose Postconviction Mitigation Challenges

Date: Jul 4, 2025
No Do‑Overs for Pro Se Capital Defendants: Invited Error and Colorable-Claim Gatekeeping Foreclose Postconviction Mitigation Challenges Introduction This commentary examines the Florida Supreme...
Lockdown, Then Consent: Kansas High Court Upholds Premises Security Pending Warrant and Validates Nonverbal Consent to Home Entry

Lockdown, Then Consent: Kansas High Court Upholds Premises Security Pending Warrant and Validates Nonverbal Consent to Home Entry

Date: Jul 4, 2025
Lockdown, Then Consent: Kansas High Court Upholds Premises Security Pending Warrant and Validates Nonverbal Consent to Home Entry Case: State v. Arredondo (No. 126,819) — Supreme Court of Kansas —...
State v. Haynes: A Defendant’s Direct-Motion Right to Obtain Warrant Affidavits—But Not Warrants—Under K.S.A. 22-2302(b) and 22-2502(d)

State v. Haynes: A Defendant’s Direct-Motion Right to Obtain Warrant Affidavits—But Not Warrants—Under K.S.A. 22-2302(b) and 22-2502(d)

Date: Jul 4, 2025
State v. Haynes: A Defendant’s Direct-Motion Right to Obtain Warrant Affidavits—But Not Warrants—Under K.S.A. 22-2302(b) and 22-2502(d) Introduction In State v. Haynes (Kan. July 3, 2025), the Kansas...
“All Issues Are for the Arbitrator”: Lamonaco v. Experian and the Eleventh Circuit’s Express Recognition that Waiver Can Be Validly Delegated

“All Issues Are for the Arbitrator”: Lamonaco v. Experian and the Eleventh Circuit’s Express Recognition that Waiver Can Be Validly Delegated

Date: Jul 4, 2025
“All Issues Are for the Arbitrator”: Lamonaco v. Experian and the Eleventh Circuit’s Express Recognition that Waiver Can Be Validly Delegated 1. Introduction Lamonaco v. Experian Information...
Kansas adopts a rebuttable “presumed prejudice” standard under Section 5 for jury-instruction omissions of an element

Kansas adopts a rebuttable “presumed prejudice” standard under Section 5 for jury-instruction omissions of an element

Date: Jul 4, 2025
Kansas adopts a rebuttable “presumed prejudice” standard under Section 5 for jury-instruction omissions of an element Introduction In State v. Gleason, No. 125,156 (Kan. July 3, 2025), the Supreme...
State v. Mitchell: Kansas Supreme Court Confirms Broad Discretion to Deny Hard-25 Departure and to Impose Consecutive Hard-50 Sentences for Multiple Victims

State v. Mitchell: Kansas Supreme Court Confirms Broad Discretion to Deny Hard-25 Departure and to Impose Consecutive Hard-50 Sentences for Multiple Victims

Date: Jul 4, 2025
State v. Mitchell: Kansas Supreme Court Confirms Broad Discretion to Deny Hard-25 Departure and to Impose Consecutive Hard-50 Sentences for Multiple Victims Introduction In State v. Mitchell, No....
“Finality & Forfeiture”: The Indiana Supreme Court’s Reinforcement of Strict Appellate Deadlines in Juvenile Delinquency Matters – Comment on State of Indiana v. B.H. (2025)

“Finality & Forfeiture”: The Indiana Supreme Court’s Reinforcement of Strict Appellate Deadlines in Juvenile Delinquency Matters – Comment on State of Indiana v. B.H. (2025)

Date: Jul 3, 2025
“Finality & Forfeiture”: The Indiana Supreme Court’s Reinforcement of Strict Appellate Deadlines in Juvenile Delinquency Matters – Comment on State of Indiana v. B.H. (2025) 1. Introduction In State...
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
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

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

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert