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

federal Case Commentaries

“AMP Means the Price Actually Realized”: Seventh Circuit Rejects Bona Fide Service Fee Treatment of Price-Increase Clawbacks and Affirms FCA Liability

“AMP Means the Price Actually Realized”: Seventh Circuit Rejects Bona Fide Service Fee Treatment of Price-Increase Clawbacks and Affirms FCA Liability

Date: Sep 12, 2025
“AMP Means the Price Actually Realized”: Seventh Circuit Rejects Bona Fide Service Fee Treatment of Price-Increase Clawbacks and Affirms FCA Liability Introduction In United States, et al., ex rel....
Approving a Prisoner’s Grievances Undercuts Retaliation Claims; Eighteen Days Without a Mattress Is Not “Objectively” Cruel and Unusual in the Eleventh Circuit

Approving a Prisoner’s Grievances Undercuts Retaliation Claims; Eighteen Days Without a Mattress Is Not “Objectively” Cruel and Unusual in the Eleventh Circuit

Date: Sep 12, 2025
Approving a Prisoner’s Grievances Undercuts Retaliation Claims; Eighteen Days Without a Mattress Is Not “Objectively” Cruel and Unusual in the Eleventh Circuit Introduction In Eddie James Moultrie v....
Haverkamp v. Linthicum: No Standing Without a Likely Medical Referral — Fifth Circuit Clarifies Traceability and Redressability in Prison-Surgery Challenges

Haverkamp v. Linthicum: No Standing Without a Likely Medical Referral — Fifth Circuit Clarifies Traceability and Redressability in Prison-Surgery Challenges

Date: Sep 12, 2025
Haverkamp v. Linthicum: No Standing Without a Likely Medical Referral — Fifth Circuit Clarifies Traceability and Redressability in Prison-Surgery Challenges Introduction In Haverkamp v. Linthicum,...
Clarifying “Antitrust Injury” vs. Substantive Pleading and Reaffirming Rule‑of‑Reason Requirements for Vertical Restraints: Amigo Shuttle v. Port Authority (2d Cir. 2025)

Clarifying “Antitrust Injury” vs. Substantive Pleading and Reaffirming Rule‑of‑Reason Requirements for Vertical Restraints: Amigo Shuttle v. Port Authority (2d Cir. 2025)

Date: Sep 12, 2025
Clarifying “Antitrust Injury” vs. Substantive Pleading and Reaffirming Rule‑of‑Reason Requirements for Vertical Restraints: Amigo Shuttle v. Port Authority (2d Cir. 2025) Court: U.S. Court of Appeals...
No Pendent Review of Contract Formation and Merits-First Litigation Defaults Arbitration Rights: Sixth Circuit Clarifies FAA §16(a) Scope and §3 “Default” in Schnatter v. 247 Group

No Pendent Review of Contract Formation and Merits-First Litigation Defaults Arbitration Rights: Sixth Circuit Clarifies FAA §16(a) Scope and §3 “Default” in Schnatter v. 247 Group

Date: Sep 11, 2025
No Pendent Review of Contract Formation and Merits-First Litigation Defaults Arbitration Rights: Sixth Circuit Clarifies FAA §16(a) Scope and §3 “Default” in Schnatter v. 247 Group Introduction In a...
Counting Pre‑Cooperation Buyers and Prior Suppliers as “Participants” Under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b): United States v. Monroe (11th Cir. 2025)

Counting Pre‑Cooperation Buyers and Prior Suppliers as “Participants” Under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b): United States v. Monroe (11th Cir. 2025)

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Counting Pre‑Cooperation Buyers and Prior Suppliers as “Participants” Under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b): United States v. Monroe (11th Cir. 2025) Introduction In United States v. Lennard Rashard Monroe, a...
“Subdued” Does Not Mean “Handcuffed”: First Circuit Extends the Clearly Established Prohibition on Prone Compression to the Pre-Cuffing Phase

“Subdued” Does Not Mean “Handcuffed”: First Circuit Extends the Clearly Established Prohibition on Prone Compression to the Pre-Cuffing Phase

Date: Sep 11, 2025
“Subdued” Does Not Mean “Handcuffed”: First Circuit Extends the Clearly Established Prohibition on Prone Compression to the Pre-Cuffing Phase Introduction In Miller v. Roycroft, No. 24-1351 (1st Cir....
Refusal of OSHA Certified Mail Does Not Defeat Service: Alternative Delivery and Judicial Notice of Address Satisfy Due Process

Refusal of OSHA Certified Mail Does Not Defeat Service: Alternative Delivery and Judicial Notice of Address Satisfy Due Process

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Refusal of OSHA Certified Mail Does Not Defeat Service: Alternative Delivery and Judicial Notice of Address Satisfy Due Process Introduction In Lori Chavez-DeRemer v. Elmer Miller d/b/a Miller...
NCMEC Is a Governmental Entity for Fourth Amendment Purposes, But ESP Hash-Matching Alone Does Not Make Providers Government Agents: A Comprehensive Commentary on United States v. Guard (2d Cir. 2025)

NCMEC Is a Governmental Entity for Fourth Amendment Purposes, But ESP Hash-Matching Alone Does Not Make Providers Government Agents: A Comprehensive Commentary on United States v. Guard (2d Cir. 2025)

Date: Sep 11, 2025
NCMEC Is a Governmental Entity for Fourth Amendment Purposes, But ESP Hash-Matching Alone Does Not Make Providers Government Agents Comprehensive Commentary on United States v. Guard, No. 23-6886 (2d...
Accommodation Cannot Compel Illegality: Second Circuit Reaffirms that Title VII Does Not Require Employers to Violate State Vaccination Rules, and Uniform Mandates Do Not Support ADA “Regarded As” Claims

Accommodation Cannot Compel Illegality: Second Circuit Reaffirms that Title VII Does Not Require Employers to Violate State Vaccination Rules, and Uniform Mandates Do Not Support ADA “Regarded As” Claims

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Accommodation Cannot Compel Illegality: Second Circuit Reaffirms that Title VII Does Not Require Employers to Violate State Vaccination Rules, and Uniform Mandates Do Not Support ADA “Regarded As”...
Principles, Not Twins: The Third Circuit’s Sensitive-Places Framework After Bruen and Rahimi — Koons v. Attorney General of New Jersey

Principles, Not Twins: The Third Circuit’s Sensitive-Places Framework After Bruen and Rahimi — Koons v. Attorney General of New Jersey

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Principles, Not Twins: The Third Circuit’s Sensitive-Places Framework After Bruen and Rahimi Commentary on Koons v. Attorney General New Jersey (3d Cir. Sept. 10, 2025) Introduction In Koons v....
Addressing the Central Thesis Suffices: Fourth Circuit Reaffirms Minimal Explanation and Harmless Error for Consecutive Revocation Sentences

Addressing the Central Thesis Suffices: Fourth Circuit Reaffirms Minimal Explanation and Harmless Error for Consecutive Revocation Sentences

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Addressing the Central Thesis Suffices: Fourth Circuit Reaffirms Minimal Explanation and Harmless Error for Consecutive Revocation Sentences Introduction This commentary analyzes the Fourth Circuit’s...
Internal Affairs, Not Foreign Receivers, Controls Bankruptcy Authority; Product‑Line Successor Claims Are Property of the Estate — A Comprehensive Commentary on In re Whittaker Clark & Daniels, Inc. (3d Cir. 2025)

Internal Affairs, Not Foreign Receivers, Controls Bankruptcy Authority; Product‑Line Successor Claims Are Property of the Estate — A Comprehensive Commentary on In re Whittaker Clark & Daniels, Inc. (3d Cir. 2025)

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Internal Affairs, Not Foreign Receivers, Controls Bankruptcy Authority; Product‑Line Successor Claims Are Property of the Estate A comprehensive commentary on In re Whittaker Clark & Daniels, Inc.,...
Eleventh Circuit Clarifies PLRA “Three-Strikes”: Jurisdictional Dismissals and Prior § 1915(g) Dismissals Do Not Count Absent an Express Failure-to-State-a-Claim Basis

Eleventh Circuit Clarifies PLRA “Three-Strikes”: Jurisdictional Dismissals and Prior § 1915(g) Dismissals Do Not Count Absent an Express Failure-to-State-a-Claim Basis

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Eleventh Circuit Clarifies PLRA “Three-Strikes”: Jurisdictional Dismissals and Prior § 1915(g) Dismissals Do Not Count Absent an Express Failure-to-State-a-Claim Basis Case: George Walter Brewster,...
Device‑Location Data Is CPNI Under § 222: Second Circuit Upholds FCC Forfeiture and Clarifies Seventh Amendment Path via § 504(a)

Device‑Location Data Is CPNI Under § 222: Second Circuit Upholds FCC Forfeiture and Clarifies Seventh Amendment Path via § 504(a)

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Device‑Location Data Is CPNI Under § 222: Second Circuit Upholds FCC Forfeiture and Clarifies Seventh Amendment Path via § 504(a) Introduction This commentary analyzes the Second Circuit’s decision...
For Pre‑2021 Asylum Filings, Past Persecution Triggers a Presumption that Internal Relocation Is Unreasonable—Burden Rests with DHS (Sahni v. Bondi)

For Pre‑2021 Asylum Filings, Past Persecution Triggers a Presumption that Internal Relocation Is Unreasonable—Burden Rests with DHS (Sahni v. Bondi)

Date: Sep 11, 2025
For Pre‑2021 Asylum Filings, Past Persecution Triggers a Presumption that Internal Relocation Is Unreasonable—Burden Rests with DHS (Sahni v. Bondi) Introduction This commentary analyzes the Second...
Pretext Turns on the Decisionmaker’s Actual Belief; Temporal Proximity Alone Cannot Overcome Documented, Pre‑Existing Nonrenewal Plans

Pretext Turns on the Decisionmaker’s Actual Belief; Temporal Proximity Alone Cannot Overcome Documented, Pre‑Existing Nonrenewal Plans

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Pretext Turns on the Decisionmaker’s Actual Belief; Temporal Proximity Alone Cannot Overcome Documented, Pre‑Existing Nonrenewal Plans Introduction In this unpublished decision, the Fourth Circuit...
“Children” Means Under 18 for § 2251(e), and § 3283’s Child‑Abuse Limitations Apply to Mann Act § 2421: Commentary on United States v. Deakins (6th Cir. 2025)

“Children” Means Under 18 for § 2251(e), and § 3283’s Child‑Abuse Limitations Apply to Mann Act § 2421: Commentary on United States v. Deakins (6th Cir. 2025)

Date: Sep 11, 2025
“Children” Means Under 18 for § 2251(e), and § 3283’s Child‑Abuse Limitations Apply to Mann Act § 2421: Commentary on United States v. Deakins (6th Cir. 2025) Introduction In United States v....
Sixth Circuit Holds First Step Act Time Credits Cannot Reduce Supervised Release; Habeas Challenges Become Moot Upon Release

Sixth Circuit Holds First Step Act Time Credits Cannot Reduce Supervised Release; Habeas Challenges Become Moot Upon Release

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Sixth Circuit Holds First Step Act Time Credits Cannot Reduce Supervised Release; Habeas Challenges Become Moot Upon Release Case: Terrell Anthony Hargrove v. Ian Healy, No. 24-3809 (6th Cir. Sept....
Prospective Only: Fourth Circuit Limits Ex parte Young Relief in Takings Cases to Post-Judgment Interest on State-Held Unclaimed Property

Prospective Only: Fourth Circuit Limits Ex parte Young Relief in Takings Cases to Post-Judgment Interest on State-Held Unclaimed Property

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Prospective Only: Fourth Circuit Limits Ex parte Young Relief in Takings Cases to Post-Judgment Interest on State-Held Unclaimed Property Introduction In Steven G. Albert v. Brooke E. Lierman, the...
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