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

ex-parte-yerger:-supreme-court& Case Commentaries

No Continuing Violation for FDCPA Suits Based on Debt-Collection Litigation; Post-Complaint Filings Do Not Restart the One-Year Clock

No Continuing Violation for FDCPA Suits Based on Debt-Collection Litigation; Post-Complaint Filings Do Not Restart the One-Year Clock

Date: Sep 27, 2025
No Continuing Violation for FDCPA Suits Based on Debt-Collection Litigation; Post-Complaint Filings Do Not Restart the One-Year Clock Case: Helisha Moore v. Cohn, Lifland, Pearlman, Hermann & Knoph...
Davis v. Curtis: Tenth Circuit Reaffirms Continuing Court‑Martial Jurisdiction After ETS and Strict “Full and Fair Consideration” Limits on § 2241 Review

Davis v. Curtis: Tenth Circuit Reaffirms Continuing Court‑Martial Jurisdiction After ETS and Strict “Full and Fair Consideration” Limits on § 2241 Review

Date: Sep 27, 2025
Continuing Court‑Martial Jurisdiction After ETS and the Strict Dodson Gatekeeper for Military Habeas Review: Commentary on Davis v. Curtis (10th Cir. Sept. 25, 2025) Introduction In Davis v. Curtis,...
No Interlocutory Appeal From Denial of Motion to Dismiss Criminal Contempt: Tenth Circuit Reaffirms “Substance Over Form” and the Narrow Reach of the Collateral-Order Doctrine and 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)

No Interlocutory Appeal From Denial of Motion to Dismiss Criminal Contempt: Tenth Circuit Reaffirms “Substance Over Form” and the Narrow Reach of the Collateral-Order Doctrine and 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)

Date: Sep 27, 2025
No Interlocutory Appeal From Denial of Motion to Dismiss Criminal Contempt: Tenth Circuit Reaffirms “Substance Over Form” and the Narrow Reach of the Collateral-Order Doctrine and 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)...
Financing Is Not “Labor or Material” Under Subcontract Payment Bonds; Oklahoma’s Parol‑Evidence Stranger Exception Applies; Prevailing Defendants May Recover Fees Under § 936 Based on the Suit’s Gravamen

Financing Is Not “Labor or Material” Under Subcontract Payment Bonds; Oklahoma’s Parol‑Evidence Stranger Exception Applies; Prevailing Defendants May Recover Fees Under § 936 Based on the Suit’s Gravamen

Date: Sep 27, 2025
Financing Is Not “Labor or Material” Under Subcontract Payment Bonds; Oklahoma’s Parol‑Evidence Stranger Exception Applies; Prevailing Defendants May Recover Fees Under § 936 Based on the Suit’s...
Limited Pearce Presumption in Nevada Parole Proceedings: No Vindictiveness Presumed When the Parole Board Self‑Corrects

Limited Pearce Presumption in Nevada Parole Proceedings: No Vindictiveness Presumed When the Parole Board Self‑Corrects

Date: Sep 27, 2025
Limited Pearce Presumption in Nevada Parole Proceedings: No Vindictiveness Presumed When the Parole Board Self‑Corrects Introduction This commentary analyzes the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in...
Gatekeeping the Three‑Judge Panel: Wisconsin Supreme Court Requires Threshold Showing that a Redistricting Suit Is an “Apportionment” Challenge Before § 751.035 Is Triggered

Gatekeeping the Three‑Judge Panel: Wisconsin Supreme Court Requires Threshold Showing that a Redistricting Suit Is an “Apportionment” Challenge Before § 751.035 Is Triggered

Date: Sep 27, 2025
Gatekeeping the Three‑Judge Panel: Wisconsin Supreme Court Requires Threshold Showing that a Redistricting Suit Is an “Apportionment” Challenge Before § 751.035 Is Triggered Introduction In a...
Gatekeeping Before Appointing Three‑Judge Redistricting Panels: Wisconsin Supreme Court to Decide What Counts as an “Apportionment” Challenge Under Wis. Stat. § 801.50(4m)

Gatekeeping Before Appointing Three‑Judge Redistricting Panels: Wisconsin Supreme Court to Decide What Counts as an “Apportionment” Challenge Under Wis. Stat. § 801.50(4m)

Date: Sep 27, 2025
Gatekeeping Before Appointing Three‑Judge Redistricting Panels: Wisconsin Supreme Court to Decide What Counts as an “Apportionment” Challenge Under Wis. Stat. § 801.50(4m) Introduction In Wisconsin...
No Initial Nonschedule Award, No Bar to SLU: Third Department Confirms SLU Eligibility and Retroactive Reopening Post‑Taher

No Initial Nonschedule Award, No Bar to SLU: Third Department Confirms SLU Eligibility and Retroactive Reopening Post‑Taher

Date: Sep 27, 2025
No Initial Nonschedule Award, No Bar to SLU: Third Department Confirms SLU Eligibility and Retroactive Reopening Post‑Taher Case: Matter of Romero v. Akorn Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 05128 (App Div, 3d...
Reaffirming the NMPRC’s Discretion: Partial Imprudence Disallowances, Recovery of Undepreciated Nuclear Lease Investments, Deferral of Decommissioning Allocations, and Ratepayer Recovery of Board Governance Costs

Reaffirming the NMPRC’s Discretion: Partial Imprudence Disallowances, Recovery of Undepreciated Nuclear Lease Investments, Deferral of Decommissioning Allocations, and Ratepayer Recovery of Board Governance Costs

Date: Sep 27, 2025
Reaffirming the NMPRC’s Discretion: Partial Imprudence Disallowances, Recovery of Undepreciated Nuclear Lease Investments, Deferral of Decommissioning Allocations, and Ratepayer Recovery of Board...
Campbell v. State: No State Duty to Collect Third‑Party Digital Evidence and the Primacy of Strickland Prejudice in Postconviction Review

Campbell v. State: No State Duty to Collect Third‑Party Digital Evidence and the Primacy of Strickland Prejudice in Postconviction Review

Date: Sep 27, 2025
Campbell v. State: No State Duty to Collect Third‑Party Digital Evidence and the Primacy of Strickland Prejudice in Postconviction Review Introduction In Campbell v. State, 2025 ND 152, the North...
Mandatory Registration for Juvenile Felony Sexual Offenses Under Pre–July 2025 N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15(2)(a): Interest of K.I.B., 2025 ND 157

Mandatory Registration for Juvenile Felony Sexual Offenses Under Pre–July 2025 N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15(2)(a): Interest of K.I.B., 2025 ND 157

Date: Sep 27, 2025
Mandatory Registration for Juvenile Felony Sexual Offenses Under Pre–July 2025 N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-15(2)(a) Case: Interest of K.I.B., 2025 ND 157 (N.D. Sept. 25, 2025) Court: Supreme Court of North...
Kraft v. State: Substance Over Label—Invoking Summary Disposition Standards Triggers a 30‑Day Response Period in North Dakota Postconviction Proceedings

Kraft v. State: Substance Over Label—Invoking Summary Disposition Standards Triggers a 30‑Day Response Period in North Dakota Postconviction Proceedings

Date: Sep 27, 2025
Kraft v. State: Substance Over Label—Invoking Summary Disposition Standards Triggers a 30‑Day Response Period in North Dakota Postconviction Proceedings Introduction This commentary examines the...
Continuing Jurisdiction to Correct Jail‑Time Credit During Appeal: The Ohio Supreme Court’s Clarification in Krouskoupf v. Anderson

Continuing Jurisdiction to Correct Jail‑Time Credit During Appeal: The Ohio Supreme Court’s Clarification in Krouskoupf v. Anderson

Date: Sep 27, 2025
Continuing Jurisdiction to Correct Jail‑Time Credit During Appeal: The Ohio Supreme Court’s Clarification in Krouskoupf v. Anderson Introduction In Krouskoupf v. Anderson, Slip Opinion No....
County Auditors Have No Discretion to Withhold Listing of Voter‑Approved Bond Levies While Bonds Remain Outstanding (State ex rel. Springfield City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton, 2025-Ohio-4427)

County Auditors Have No Discretion to Withhold Listing of Voter‑Approved Bond Levies While Bonds Remain Outstanding (State ex rel. Springfield City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Hamilton, 2025-Ohio-4427)

Date: Sep 27, 2025
County Auditors Have No Discretion to Withhold Listing of Voter‑Approved Bond Levies While Bonds Remain Outstanding Case: State ex rel. Springfield City School District Board of Education v....
Nexus-Based Duty for Off‑Campus Abuse and Pleading-Stage Punitive Damages in CVA School Cases: Commentary on C.R. v. Episcopal Diocese of N.Y. (2025 NY Slip Op 05144)

Nexus-Based Duty for Off‑Campus Abuse and Pleading-Stage Punitive Damages in CVA School Cases: Commentary on C.R. v. Episcopal Diocese of N.Y. (2025 NY Slip Op 05144)

Date: Sep 27, 2025
Nexus-Based Duty for Off‑Campus Abuse and Pleading-Stage Punitive Damages in CVA School Cases: C.R. v. Episcopal Diocese of N.Y. Introduction In C.R. v. Episcopal Diocese of New York, 2025 NY Slip Op...
"Entire Amount" Means Joint and Several: Utah Supreme Court Holds Comparative Fault Is Inapplicable to Criminal Restitution Under the Crime Victims Restitution Act

"Entire Amount" Means Joint and Several: Utah Supreme Court Holds Comparative Fault Is Inapplicable to Criminal Restitution Under the Crime Victims Restitution Act

Date: Sep 27, 2025
"Entire Amount" Means Joint and Several: Utah Supreme Court Holds Comparative Fault Is Inapplicable to Criminal Restitution Under the Crime Victims Restitution Act Introduction In State v. Debrok,...
Express “Street and Sidewalk Appurtenance” Agreements Control Fixture Status: City Owns and May Remove Pike Plan Canopies

Express “Street and Sidewalk Appurtenance” Agreements Control Fixture Status: City Owns and May Remove Pike Plan Canopies

Date: Sep 27, 2025
Express “Street and Sidewalk Appurtenance” Agreements Control Fixture Status: City Owns and May Remove Pike Plan Canopies Introduction In 306 Wall St. Owners, LLC v. City of Kingston, the Appellate...
No Guarantees Required: 90% Earnings Letters Satisfy “Reasonable Assurance” for Per Diem Substitutes under New York Labor Law § 590(10)

No Guarantees Required: 90% Earnings Letters Satisfy “Reasonable Assurance” for Per Diem Substitutes under New York Labor Law § 590(10)

Date: Sep 27, 2025
No Guarantees Required: 90% Earnings Letters Satisfy “Reasonable Assurance” for Per Diem Substitutes under New York Labor Law § 590(10) Introduction In Matter of Caruso (Shenendehowa Cent. Sch....
Schoenhals: Monschke Is a Retroactive, Substantive Change; Mandatory LWOP for 18–20-Year-Olds Is Unconstitutional; Per Se Prejudice and Facial Invalidity Provide Two Paths Around the PRP Time Bar

Schoenhals: Monschke Is a Retroactive, Substantive Change; Mandatory LWOP for 18–20-Year-Olds Is Unconstitutional; Per Se Prejudice and Facial Invalidity Provide Two Paths Around the PRP Time Bar

Date: Sep 27, 2025
Schoenhals: Monschke Is a Retroactive, Substantive Change; Mandatory LWOP for 18–20-Year-Olds Is Unconstitutional; Per Se Prejudice and Facial Invalidity Provide Two Paths Around the PRP Time Bar...
Summary Contempt Narrowed: Personal Observation Must Establish Voluntary Intoxication Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, and Findings Must Match the Record — Orndoff v. Commonwealth (Va. 2025)

Summary Contempt Narrowed: Personal Observation Must Establish Voluntary Intoxication Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, and Findings Must Match the Record — Orndoff v. Commonwealth (Va. 2025)

Date: Sep 27, 2025
Summary Contempt Narrowed: Personal Observation Must Establish Voluntary Intoxication Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, and Findings Must Match the Record — Orndoff v. Commonwealth (Va. 2025) Introduction...
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