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

first-circuit-reinforces-first-amendment-protections-for-secret-audio-recording-of-police-in-public:-interpretation-of-massachusetts& Case Commentaries

Eleventh Circuit Mandates Strict Particularity in Medicare Appeals Council Requests for Review under 42 C.F.R. § 405.1112(b)

Eleventh Circuit Mandates Strict Particularity in Medicare Appeals Council Requests for Review under 42 C.F.R. § 405.1112(b)

Date: Aug 7, 2025
Eleventh Circuit Mandates Strict Particularity in Medicare Appeals Council Requests for Review under 42 C.F.R. § 405.1112(b) Introduction In Rehabilitation Hospital of Phenix City, LLC v. Secretary,...
The “Jackson Investigation Doctrine” – When an Employer’s Good-Faith, Employee-Requested Investigation Defeats Retaliation Claims

The “Jackson Investigation Doctrine” – When an Employer’s Good-Faith, Employee-Requested Investigation Defeats Retaliation Claims

Date: Aug 7, 2025
The “Jackson Investigation Doctrine” Eleventh Circuit clarifies that discipline flowing from an employee-requested, good-faith investigation constitutes a legitimate, non-retaliatory basis for...
Clarifying Standing and Upholding Consent-Conditioned Rental Inspections: The Sixth Circuit’s Decision in Herschfus v. City of Oak Park (2025)

Clarifying Standing and Upholding Consent-Conditioned Rental Inspections: The Sixth Circuit’s Decision in Herschfus v. City of Oak Park (2025)

Date: Aug 7, 2025
Clarifying Standing and Upholding Consent-Conditioned Rental Inspections: The Sixth Circuit’s Decision in Herschfus v. City of Oak Park (2025) 1. Introduction In Brian H. Herschfus v. City of Oak...

        “No Implied Release without Express Words”: Sixth Circuit Clarifies UCC § 9-315 and 
        the Buyer-in-Ordinary-Course Defense in HBKY, LLC v. Elk River Export, LLC

“No Implied Release without Express Words”: Sixth Circuit Clarifies UCC § 9-315 and the Buyer-in-Ordinary-Course Defense in HBKY, LLC v. Elk River Export, LLC

Date: Aug 7, 2025
“No Implied Release without Express Words”: Sixth Circuit Clarifies UCC § 9-315 and the Buyer-in-Ordinary-Course Defense in HBKY, LLC v. Elk River Export, LLC I. Introduction HBKY, LLC v. Elk River...
The “Lowe Rule”: Impeachment-Only Hearsay Cannot Sustain an ELCRA Age-Discrimination Verdict

The “Lowe Rule”: Impeachment-Only Hearsay Cannot Sustain an ELCRA Age-Discrimination Verdict

Date: Aug 7, 2025
The “Lowe Rule”: Impeachment-Only Hearsay Cannot Sustain an ELCRA Age-Discrimination Verdict Introduction Case: Kenneth James Lowe v. Walbro, LLC – United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth...
Sixth Circuit Clarifies Prosecutorial Absolute Immunity for Post-Charge Witness Preparation and Affirms Broad Release under Michigan’s WICA

Sixth Circuit Clarifies Prosecutorial Absolute Immunity for Post-Charge Witness Preparation and Affirms Broad Release under Michigan’s WICA

Date: Aug 7, 2025
Sixth Circuit Clarifies Prosecutorial Absolute Immunity for Post-Charge Witness Preparation and Affirms Broad Release under Michigan’s WICA Introduction In Larry Smith v. Wayne County, Michigan, No....
“One Ignored Complaint Is Enough” – The Sixth Circuit’s Dual Ruling on Excessive-Force Handcuffing and Michigan Gross-Negligence Immunity

“One Ignored Complaint Is Enough” – The Sixth Circuit’s Dual Ruling on Excessive-Force Handcuffing and Michigan Gross-Negligence Immunity

Date: Aug 7, 2025
“One Ignored Complaint Is Enough” – The Sixth Circuit’s Dual Ruling on Excessive-Force Handcuffing and Michigan Gross-Negligence Immunity Introduction Sherrell King v. City of Lincoln Park, Mich.,...
“No Accident in Self-Defense”: Sixth Circuit Clarifies that Intentional Self-Defense Shootings Are Not “Occurrences” Under Michigan Homeowner Policies

“No Accident in Self-Defense”: Sixth Circuit Clarifies that Intentional Self-Defense Shootings Are Not “Occurrences” Under Michigan Homeowner Policies

Date: Aug 7, 2025
“No Accident in Self-Defense”: Sixth Circuit Clarifies that Intentional Self-Defense Shootings Are Not “Occurrences” Under Michigan Homeowner Policies 1. Introduction State Farm Fire & Casualty Co....
Express Severance “Cancellation of All Prior Agreements” Clauses Extinguish Trailing Commission Rights and Bar Later Contract Claims: Commentary on Wagschal v. Ecconergy (2025 NY Slip Op 04595)

Express Severance “Cancellation of All Prior Agreements” Clauses Extinguish Trailing Commission Rights and Bar Later Contract Claims: Commentary on Wagschal v. Ecconergy (2025 NY Slip Op 04595)

Date: Aug 7, 2025
Express Severance “Cancellation of All Prior Agreements” Clauses Extinguish Trailing Commission Rights and Bar Later Contract Claims: Commentary on Wagschal v. Ecconergy (2025 NY Slip Op 04595)...
People v. Lloyd F.: Second Department sets a stringent “extraordinary circumstances” bar under CPL 722.23(1)(d) for retaining adolescent-offender cases in the Youth Part

People v. Lloyd F.: Second Department sets a stringent “extraordinary circumstances” bar under CPL 722.23(1)(d) for retaining adolescent-offender cases in the Youth Part

Date: Aug 7, 2025
People v. Lloyd F.: Second Department sets a stringent “extraordinary circumstances” bar under CPL 722.23(1)(d) for retaining adolescent-offender cases in the Youth Part Introduction In People v....
Moving Scaffolds Under Ceiling Obstacles: Unsecured Materials “Require Securing” — Second Department Revives Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) Claims and Negligence Against Subcontractor

Moving Scaffolds Under Ceiling Obstacles: Unsecured Materials “Require Securing” — Second Department Revives Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) Claims and Negligence Against Subcontractor

Date: Aug 7, 2025
Moving Scaffolds Under Ceiling Obstacles: Unsecured Materials “Require Securing” — Second Department Revives Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) Claims and Negligence Against Subcontractor Introduction...
Kirby v. Perkins: Delaware Supreme Court Clarifies Best-Interests Analysis and Limits Reliance on Third-Party Funding in School-Choice Custody Disputes

Kirby v. Perkins: Delaware Supreme Court Clarifies Best-Interests Analysis and Limits Reliance on Third-Party Funding in School-Choice Custody Disputes

Date: Aug 7, 2025
Kirby v. Perkins: Delaware Supreme Court Clarifies Best-Interests Analysis and Limits Reliance on Third-Party Funding in School-Choice Custody Disputes 1. Introduction Kirby v. Perkins, Supreme Court...
No Personal Jurisdiction Needed to Domesticate Sister‑State Judgments in New York: Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Simms

No Personal Jurisdiction Needed to Domesticate Sister‑State Judgments in New York: Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Simms

Date: Aug 7, 2025
No Personal Jurisdiction Needed to Domesticate Sister‑State Judgments in New York Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Simms (2025 NY Slip Op 04541), Appellate Division, Second Department Introduction...
COVID-19 Tolling Applies to the CPLR 205(a)/205-a Six-Month Savings Period in Foreclosure Actions; Dismissal for RPAPL 1306 Noncompliance Is Not “On the Merits”

COVID-19 Tolling Applies to the CPLR 205(a)/205-a Six-Month Savings Period in Foreclosure Actions; Dismissal for RPAPL 1306 Noncompliance Is Not “On the Merits”

Date: Aug 7, 2025
COVID-19 Tolling Applies to the CPLR 205(a)/205-a Six-Month Savings Period in Foreclosure Actions; Dismissal for RPAPL 1306 Noncompliance Is Not “On the Merits” Introduction This commentary examines...
Contractual Waiver of Resignation Challenges Does Not Extinguish Right to Seek Religious Accommodation Under DOE Vaccine Mandate

Contractual Waiver of Resignation Challenges Does Not Extinguish Right to Seek Religious Accommodation Under DOE Vaccine Mandate

Date: Aug 7, 2025
Contractual Waiver of Resignation Challenges Does Not Extinguish Right to Seek Religious Accommodation Under DOE Vaccine Mandate Case: Matter of LaBarbera v. New York City Department of Education,...
Imputing Counsel’s Repeated Neglect to the Client: Second Department Narrows “Interest‑of‑Justice” Vacatur and Enforces the One‑Year CPLR 5015(a)(1) Deadline

Imputing Counsel’s Repeated Neglect to the Client: Second Department Narrows “Interest‑of‑Justice” Vacatur and Enforces the One‑Year CPLR 5015(a)(1) Deadline

Date: Aug 7, 2025
Imputing Counsel’s Repeated Neglect to the Client: Second Department Narrows “Interest‑of‑Justice” Vacatur and Enforces the One‑Year CPLR 5015(a)(1) Deadline Introduction In Zlobec v. Bank of N.Y....
Closed A‑Frame Ladder Use, Speculative Lighting Claims, and Recurring Water: The Second Department’s Clarification of §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 in Araujo v. Monadnock Construction, Inc.

Closed A‑Frame Ladder Use, Speculative Lighting Claims, and Recurring Water: The Second Department’s Clarification of §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 in Araujo v. Monadnock Construction, Inc.

Date: Aug 7, 2025
Closed A‑Frame Ladder Use, Speculative Lighting Claims, and Recurring Water: The Second Department’s Clarification of §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 in Araujo v. Monadnock Construction, Inc. Introduction...
Coverage Denial as a Single Breach: Second Department Fixes Accrual at Disclaimer Date and Rejects Continuing‑Wrong Tolling for Excess Workers’ Compensation Policies

Coverage Denial as a Single Breach: Second Department Fixes Accrual at Disclaimer Date and Rejects Continuing‑Wrong Tolling for Excess Workers’ Compensation Policies

Date: Aug 7, 2025
Coverage Denial as a Single Breach: Second Department Fixes Accrual at Disclaimer Date and Rejects Continuing‑Wrong Tolling for Excess Workers’ Compensation Policies Introduction In New York Bus...
The Heckscher Specificity Rule: Under Court of Claims Act §11(b), an Insufficient “Place” Allegation Is a Jurisdictional Defect That Cannot Be Cured by Amendment, Cannot Be Treated as a Claim, and Does Not Extend Time to File

The Heckscher Specificity Rule: Under Court of Claims Act §11(b), an Insufficient “Place” Allegation Is a Jurisdictional Defect That Cannot Be Cured by Amendment, Cannot Be Treated as a Claim, and Does Not Extend Time to File

Date: Aug 7, 2025
The Heckscher Specificity Rule: Under Court of Claims Act §11(b), an Insufficient “Place” Allegation Is a Jurisdictional Defect That Cannot Be Cured by Amendment, Cannot Be Treated as a Claim, and...
“Foreseeability over Self-Defense” – Sixth Circuit Clarifies the Threshold for an “Occurrence” under Michigan Homeowner Policies

“Foreseeability over Self-Defense” – Sixth Circuit Clarifies the Threshold for an “Occurrence” under Michigan Homeowner Policies

Date: Aug 6, 2025
“Foreseeability over Self-Defense” – Sixth Circuit Clarifies the Threshold for an “Occurrence” under Michigan Homeowner Policies Introduction State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Daniele Giannone, Nos....
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