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

ensuring-indictment-validity:-prosecutor& Case Commentaries

Consciousness-of-Guilt and Intent: Wyoming High Court Affirms Admissibility of “Going Back to Prison” Statements Under W.R.E. 404(b) in Felony Stalking

Consciousness-of-Guilt and Intent: Wyoming High Court Affirms Admissibility of “Going Back to Prison” Statements Under W.R.E. 404(b) in Felony Stalking

Date: Oct 13, 2025
Consciousness-of-Guilt and Intent: Wyoming High Court Affirms Admissibility of “Going Back to Prison” Statements Under W.R.E. 404(b) in Felony Stalking Case: Jason Scott Bragdon v. The State of...
Imputed Staff Rumors and Red-Flag Hiring Records Defeat Summary Judgment in School CVA Abuse Cases: Commentary on Harper v. Buffalo City School District

Imputed Staff Rumors and Red-Flag Hiring Records Defeat Summary Judgment in School CVA Abuse Cases: Commentary on Harper v. Buffalo City School District

Date: Oct 13, 2025
Imputed Staff Rumors and Red-Flag Hiring Records Defeat Summary Judgment in School CVA Abuse Cases Commentary on Harper v. Buffalo City School District, 2025 NY Slip Op 05595 (4th Dept Oct. 10, 2025)...
Matter of Cynthia M.: Unified Multi‑Domain Neglect Findings—and Sibling Derivative Neglect—Based on Unrebutted Medical, Dental, and School Records

Matter of Cynthia M.: Unified Multi‑Domain Neglect Findings—and Sibling Derivative Neglect—Based on Unrebutted Medical, Dental, and School Records

Date: Oct 13, 2025
Matter of Cynthia M.: Unified Multi‑Domain Neglect Findings—and Sibling Derivative Neglect—Based on Unrebutted Medical, Dental, and School Records Introduction In Matter of Cynthia M., 2025 NY Slip...
People v. Clea: Fourth Department Limits Penal Law § 265.09(2) Firearm Enhancement to the Indicted Predicate Class B Felony and Requires a Jury Finding of Display of a Loaded, Operable Weapon

People v. Clea: Fourth Department Limits Penal Law § 265.09(2) Firearm Enhancement to the Indicted Predicate Class B Felony and Requires a Jury Finding of Display of a Loaded, Operable Weapon

Date: Oct 13, 2025
People v. Clea: Limiting Penal Law § 265.09(2) to the Indicted Predicate Class B Felony with a Proven Display of a Loaded, Operable Weapon Introduction In People v. Clea, 2025 NY Slip Op 05590 (4th...
Reinstatement Is Not a Silo: Wisconsin Supreme Court Imposes an Affirmative Duty to Disclose Concurrent Discipline and Confirms the Expansive Scope of SCR 22.305 (Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Steven D. Johnson, 2025 WI 45)

Reinstatement Is Not a Silo: Wisconsin Supreme Court Imposes an Affirmative Duty to Disclose Concurrent Discipline and Confirms the Expansive Scope of SCR 22.305 (Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Steven D. Johnson, 2025 WI 45)

Date: Oct 13, 2025
Reinstatement Is Not a Silo: Wisconsin Supreme Court Imposes an Affirmative Duty to Disclose Concurrent Discipline and Confirms the Expansive Scope of SCR 22.305 Case: Office of Lawyer Regulation v....
Treating a Pending Reinstatement as De Facto Suspension: Public Censure for Lack of Candor in In re Kolb

Treating a Pending Reinstatement as De Facto Suspension: Public Censure for Lack of Candor in In re Kolb

Date: Oct 13, 2025
Treating a Pending Reinstatement as De Facto Suspension: Public Censure for Lack of Candor in In re Kolb Introduction In the Matter of Staci L. Kolb is a Rhode Island Supreme Court attorney...
Forrer v. State of Alaska: Broad “Sustained Yield” Challenges Are Nonjusticiable; Plaintiffs Must Target Specific Agency Actions

Forrer v. State of Alaska: Broad “Sustained Yield” Challenges Are Nonjusticiable; Plaintiffs Must Target Specific Agency Actions

Date: Oct 13, 2025
Forrer v. State of Alaska: Broad “Sustained Yield” Challenges Are Nonjusticiable; Plaintiffs Must Target Specific Agency Actions Introduction In Forrer v. State of Alaska (Alaska Supreme Court No....
Expedited APOC Hearings Are Not Final: Alaska Supreme Court Upholds Post‑Hearing Subpoenas and Rejects Res Judicata and Due Process Challenges

Expedited APOC Hearings Are Not Final: Alaska Supreme Court Upholds Post‑Hearing Subpoenas and Rejects Res Judicata and Due Process Challenges

Date: Oct 13, 2025
Expedited APOC Hearings Are Not Final: Alaska Supreme Court Upholds Post‑Hearing Subpoenas and Rejects Res Judicata and Due Process Challenges Case: Republican Governors Association; A Stronger...
Contract Terms Control “Reasonable Expectations” in Nebraska Close Corporations: No‑Cause Termination and Book‑Value Redemption Preclude Oppression and Fiduciary‑Duty Claims — Commentary on Noel v. Pathology Medical Services, P.C., 320 Neb. 92 (2025)

Contract Terms Control “Reasonable Expectations” in Nebraska Close Corporations: No‑Cause Termination and Book‑Value Redemption Preclude Oppression and Fiduciary‑Duty Claims — Commentary on Noel v. Pathology Medical Services, P.C., 320 Neb. 92 (2025)

Date: Oct 13, 2025
Contract Terms Control “Reasonable Expectations” in Nebraska Close Corporations: No‑Cause Termination and Book‑Value Redemption Preclude Oppression and Fiduciary‑Duty Claims Commentary on Noel v....
Forfeiture, Not Waiver: Nebraska Clarifies Preservation of Prosecutorial‑Misconduct Mistrial Claims in State v. Hagens

Forfeiture, Not Waiver: Nebraska Clarifies Preservation of Prosecutorial‑Misconduct Mistrial Claims in State v. Hagens

Date: Oct 13, 2025
Forfeiture, Not Waiver: Nebraska Clarifies Preservation of Prosecutorial‑Misconduct Mistrial Claims in State v. Hagens Introduction In State v. Hagens, 320 Neb. 65 (2025), the Nebraska Supreme Court...
“Reinstatement Is Not a Silo”: Wisconsin Supreme Court mandates disclosure of intervening discipline and reaffirms the far‑ranging scope of reinstatement inquiries under SCR 22.305, SCR 22.29(4), and SCR 22.40

“Reinstatement Is Not a Silo”: Wisconsin Supreme Court mandates disclosure of intervening discipline and reaffirms the far‑ranging scope of reinstatement inquiries under SCR 22.305, SCR 22.29(4), and SCR 22.40

Date: Oct 13, 2025
“Reinstatement Is Not a Silo”: Wisconsin Supreme Court mandates disclosure of intervening discipline and reaffirms the far‑ranging scope of reinstatement inquiries under SCR 22.305, SCR 22.29(4), and...
Proximity Is Not Probable Cause: The Third Circuit Affirms a Nexus Requirement for Warrantless Automobile Searches When Contraband Departs in a One-Way Transfer

Proximity Is Not Probable Cause: The Third Circuit Affirms a Nexus Requirement for Warrantless Automobile Searches When Contraband Departs in a One-Way Transfer

Date: Oct 11, 2025
Proximity Is Not Probable Cause: The Third Circuit Affirms a Nexus Requirement for Warrantless Automobile Searches When Contraband Departs in a One-Way Transfer Introduction In United States v. Diaz...
No Article III Standing to Compel MMPA Incidental Take Authorization Without a Certainly Impending, Injury‑Causing Operation

No Article III Standing to Compel MMPA Incidental Take Authorization Without a Certainly Impending, Injury‑Causing Operation

Date: Oct 11, 2025
No Article III Standing to Compel MMPA Incidental Take Authorization Without a Certainly Impending, Injury‑Causing Operation Introduction In Harrison County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Fifth...
Reddin v. Phelan: Fifth Circuit Clarifies BCNR’s Distinct § 1552 Regime and Upholds “Liberal Consideration” Without a Heightened Burden

Reddin v. Phelan: Fifth Circuit Clarifies BCNR’s Distinct § 1552 Regime and Upholds “Liberal Consideration” Without a Heightened Burden

Date: Oct 11, 2025
Reddin v. Phelan: Fifth Circuit Clarifies BCNR’s Distinct § 1552 Regime and Upholds “Liberal Consideration” Without a Heightened Burden Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date:...
Expert Testimony Is Required to Prove Non-Negligible Risk in Massachusetts Informed-Consent Claims: The First Circuit’s Clarification in Meka v. Haddad

Expert Testimony Is Required to Prove Non-Negligible Risk in Massachusetts Informed-Consent Claims: The First Circuit’s Clarification in Meka v. Haddad

Date: Oct 11, 2025
Expert Testimony Is Required to Prove Non-Negligible Risk in Massachusetts Informed-Consent Claims: The First Circuit’s Clarification in Meka v. Haddad Introduction In Meka v. Haddad, the United...
Errato v. Seder (2d Cir. 2025): No Federal Do‑Over of Divorce Judgments; Independent Fraud Claims May Evade the Domestic Relations Exception but Are Precluded After Prior Litigation

Errato v. Seder (2d Cir. 2025): No Federal Do‑Over of Divorce Judgments; Independent Fraud Claims May Evade the Domestic Relations Exception but Are Precluded After Prior Litigation

Date: Oct 11, 2025
Errato v. Seder (2d Cir. 2025): No Federal Do‑Over of Divorce Judgments; Independent Fraud Claims May Evade the Domestic Relations Exception but Are Precluded After Prior Litigation Court: U.S. Court...
Second Circuit confirms: Seven-figure emotional distress awards in attempted workplace rape need no medical proof; amounts exceeding the Title VII cap properly ride on NYCHRL/NYSHRL

Second Circuit confirms: Seven-figure emotional distress awards in attempted workplace rape need no medical proof; amounts exceeding the Title VII cap properly ride on NYCHRL/NYSHRL

Date: Oct 11, 2025
Second Circuit confirms: Seven-figure emotional distress awards in attempted workplace rape need no medical proof; amounts exceeding the Title VII cap properly ride on NYCHRL/NYSHRL Introduction In...
Reaffirming Broad District Court Discretion in § 3582(c)(2) Motions After Amendment 821: Emphasis on Unchanged Criminal History Is Permissible

Reaffirming Broad District Court Discretion in § 3582(c)(2) Motions After Amendment 821: Emphasis on Unchanged Criminal History Is Permissible

Date: Oct 11, 2025
Reaffirming Broad District Court Discretion in § 3582(c)(2) Motions After Amendment 821: Emphasis on Unchanged Criminal History Is Permissible Introduction In United States v. Ahmed (No. 24-2629),...
Short Orders, Broad Discretion: Eleventh Circuit Affirms Denial of Amendment 821 “Zero‑Point Offender” Reductions Based on § 3553(a) Factors

Short Orders, Broad Discretion: Eleventh Circuit Affirms Denial of Amendment 821 “Zero‑Point Offender” Reductions Based on § 3553(a) Factors

Date: Oct 11, 2025
Short Orders, Broad Discretion: Eleventh Circuit Affirms Denial of Amendment 821 “Zero‑Point Offender” Reductions Based on § 3553(a) Factors Introduction In United States v. Jose Rogelio...
Marginian’s Shield Extends to Group Captives: No Ohio Bad‑Faith Claim When Insurer Settles Within Policy Limits Despite Captive Reimbursement

Marginian’s Shield Extends to Group Captives: No Ohio Bad‑Faith Claim When Insurer Settles Within Policy Limits Despite Captive Reimbursement

Date: Oct 11, 2025
Marginian’s Shield Extends to Group Captives: No Ohio Bad‑Faith Claim When Insurer Settles Within Policy Limits Despite Captive Reimbursement Introduction In Chemical Solvents, Inc. v. Greenwich...
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