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

interpreting-& Case Commentaries

Ohio Supreme Court Caps Clerk Technology Fee at $1 Total Per Service for “Complete Record” Charges, Not Per Page

Ohio Supreme Court Caps Clerk Technology Fee at $1 Total Per Service for “Complete Record” Charges, Not Per Page

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Ohio Supreme Court Caps Clerk Technology Fee at $1 Total Per Service for “Complete Record” Charges, Not Per Page Case: State ex rel. Gault v. Medina County Court of Common Pleas Clerk, Slip Opinion...
Timeliness Is for the Arbitrator: Ohio Supreme Court Bars Employer Self‑Help on Arbitration Deadlines and Requires SERB to Explain ULP Dismissals

Timeliness Is for the Arbitrator: Ohio Supreme Court Bars Employer Self‑Help on Arbitration Deadlines and Requires SERB to Explain ULP Dismissals

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Timeliness Is for the Arbitrator: Ohio Supreme Court Bars Employer Self‑Help on Arbitration Deadlines and Requires SERB to Explain ULP Dismissals Introduction In State ex rel. Staple v. State...
Privilege Follows the Reporting: Montana High Court Holds Place of Newsgathering Governs Media-Subpoena Privileges

Privilege Follows the Reporting: Montana High Court Holds Place of Newsgathering Governs Media-Subpoena Privileges

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Privilege Follows the Reporting: Montana High Court Holds Place of Newsgathering Governs Media-Subpoena Privileges Introduction In EQT CHAP LLC v. Environmental Health Sciences, 2025 MT 237, the...
Interpreter Ambiguity, Written Translations, and Anders/Rule 26(c) Review Clarified: Muniz‑Rodriguez v. State

Interpreter Ambiguity, Written Translations, and Anders/Rule 26(c) Review Clarified: Muniz‑Rodriguez v. State

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Interpreter Ambiguity, Written Translations, and Anders/Rule 26(c) Review Clarified: Muniz‑Rodriguez v. State Introduction In Muniz‑Rodriguez v. State, No. 120, 2025 (Del. Oct. 14, 2025), the...
Disqualifying Faction Counsel from Representing the Entity in Control Disputes; Injunction Undertakings Must Be Tied to Non‑Speculative Damages

Disqualifying Faction Counsel from Representing the Entity in Control Disputes; Injunction Undertakings Must Be Tied to Non‑Speculative Damages

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Disqualifying Faction Counsel from Representing the Entity in Control Disputes; Injunction Undertakings Must Be Tied to Non‑Speculative Damages Introduction In Congregation Erech Shai Bais Yosef,...
Second Department Confirms Retroactive Reach of FAPA: Voluntary Discontinuance Cannot De‑Accelerate or Reset the Mortgage Foreclosure Limitations Period

Second Department Confirms Retroactive Reach of FAPA: Voluntary Discontinuance Cannot De‑Accelerate or Reset the Mortgage Foreclosure Limitations Period

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Second Department Confirms Retroactive Reach of FAPA: Voluntary Discontinuance Cannot De‑Accelerate or Reset the Mortgage Foreclosure Limitations Period Introduction In GITSIT Solutions, LLC v....
CVA Revival Upheld; Negligent Supervision and IIED Claims Against Institutions May Proceed While Vicarious Liability for Sexual Assault Is Dismissed: Georgiou v. St. Irene Monastery

CVA Revival Upheld; Negligent Supervision and IIED Claims Against Institutions May Proceed While Vicarious Liability for Sexual Assault Is Dismissed: Georgiou v. St. Irene Monastery

Date: Oct 17, 2025
CVA Revival Upheld; Negligent Supervision and IIED Claims Against Institutions May Proceed While Vicarious Liability for Sexual Assault Is Dismissed: Georgiou v. St. Irene Monastery Introduction In...
Forbearance of Divorce as Valid Consideration, Yet Oral Promises to Convey Realty Remain Unenforceable Against Subsequent Purchasers Absent Writing or “Unequivocally Referable” Part Performance — Makransky v. Makransky (2d Dep’t 2025)

Forbearance of Divorce as Valid Consideration, Yet Oral Promises to Convey Realty Remain Unenforceable Against Subsequent Purchasers Absent Writing or “Unequivocally Referable” Part Performance — Makransky v. Makransky (2d Dep’t 2025)

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Forbearance of Divorce as Valid Consideration, Yet Oral Promises to Convey Realty Remain Unenforceable Against Subsequent Purchasers Absent Writing or “Unequivocally Referable” Part Performance —...
Firmly Affixed Allonges and First‑Hand Mailing Proof as Nonnegotiable Conditions Precedent in New York Foreclosures: Onewest Bank FSB v. Thomas

Firmly Affixed Allonges and First‑Hand Mailing Proof as Nonnegotiable Conditions Precedent in New York Foreclosures: Onewest Bank FSB v. Thomas

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Firmly Affixed Allonges and First‑Hand Mailing Proof as Nonnegotiable Conditions Precedent in New York Foreclosures: Onewest Bank FSB v. Thomas Introduction In Onewest Bank FSB v. Thomas, 2025 NY...
Canon 3(C) Clarified: No Misconduct Where a Judge Promptly Invokes Article 154’s Ad Hoc Recusal Procedure; Thirty‑Day Suspension for Injudicious Demeanor

Canon 3(C) Clarified: No Misconduct Where a Judge Promptly Invokes Article 154’s Ad Hoc Recusal Procedure; Thirty‑Day Suspension for Injudicious Demeanor

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Canon 3(C) Clarified: No Misconduct Where a Judge Promptly Invokes Article 154’s Ad Hoc Recusal Procedure; Thirty‑Day Suspension for Injudicious Demeanor Introduction The Supreme Court of Louisiana’s...
Per-Unit Statute of Repose Under OCGA § 51-1-11(b)(2): Georgia Supreme Court Holds Repose Runs From the First Sale of Each Unit, Not From a Plaintiff’s Earliest Purchase

Per-Unit Statute of Repose Under OCGA § 51-1-11(b)(2): Georgia Supreme Court Holds Repose Runs From the First Sale of Each Unit, Not From a Plaintiff’s Earliest Purchase

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Per-Unit Statute of Repose Under OCGA § 51-1-11(b)(2): Georgia Supreme Court Holds Repose Runs From the First Sale of Each Unit, Not From a Plaintiff’s Earliest Purchase Introduction In Burroughs v....

      Georgia Supreme Court Bars Use of Arrest Warrants and Indictments for Impeachment Under OCGA § 24-6-609; Ineffective-Assistance Claims Fail Absent Prejudice — Commentary on Copney v. State (Ga. 2025)

Georgia Supreme Court Bars Use of Arrest Warrants and Indictments for Impeachment Under OCGA § 24-6-609; Ineffective-Assistance Claims Fail Absent Prejudice — Commentary on Copney v. State (Ga. 2025)

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Georgia Supreme Court Bars Use of Arrest Warrants and Indictments for Impeachment Under OCGA § 24-6-609; Ineffective-Assistance Claims Fail Absent Prejudice Introduction In Copney v. State, S25A0877...
Stormwater Utility Charges Are Fees, Not Taxes: Georgia Supreme Court Reaffirms Homewood I and Clarifies Takings Doctrine After Sheetz

Stormwater Utility Charges Are Fees, Not Taxes: Georgia Supreme Court Reaffirms Homewood I and Clarifies Takings Doctrine After Sheetz

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Stormwater Utility Charges Are Fees, Not Taxes: Georgia Supreme Court Reaffirms Homewood I and Clarifies Takings Doctrine After Sheetz Introduction In Homewood Associates, Inc. et al. v. Unified...
Legitimation Against the Marital Presumption: Georgia Supreme Court Leaves Best‑Interests Framework Intact and Calls for Legislative Clarification

Legitimation Against the Marital Presumption: Georgia Supreme Court Leaves Best‑Interests Framework Intact and Calls for Legislative Clarification

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Legitimation Against the Marital Presumption: Georgia Supreme Court Leaves Best‑Interests Framework Intact and Calls for Legislative Clarification Introduction In Marquez v. Aguirre, Case No....
Moss v. State: Ambiguous Self-Referential Statements Do Not Clearly Trigger Georgia’s Confession-Corroboration Rule; Unsettled Status of Offense Captions as Factual Allegations; Particularity of Cell-Phone Warrants Reaffirmed Through Pugh/Wilson Framework

Moss v. State: Ambiguous Self-Referential Statements Do Not Clearly Trigger Georgia’s Confession-Corroboration Rule; Unsettled Status of Offense Captions as Factual Allegations; Particularity of Cell-Phone Warrants Reaffirmed Through Pugh/Wilson Framework

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Moss v. State: Ambiguous Self-Referential Statements Do Not Clearly Trigger Georgia’s Confession-Corroboration Rule; Unsettled Status of Offense Captions as Factual Allegations; Particularity of...
Redressability at the Core of Georgia’s Actual-Controversy Requirement: Plaintiffs Must Sue the Actor Causing the Injury

Redressability at the Core of Georgia’s Actual-Controversy Requirement: Plaintiffs Must Sue the Actor Causing the Injury

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Redressability at the Core of Georgia’s Actual-Controversy Requirement: Plaintiffs Must Sue the Actor Causing the Injury Introduction This commentary examines the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision...
Plain Error at the Time of Appeal—With a Prospective Caveat: Georgia High Court Holds Daubert Inapplicable to Pre‑2022 Criminal Trials and Reaffirms Harper/Belton for Footwear Testimony

Plain Error at the Time of Appeal—With a Prospective Caveat: Georgia High Court Holds Daubert Inapplicable to Pre‑2022 Criminal Trials and Reaffirms Harper/Belton for Footwear Testimony

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Plain Error at the Time of Appeal—With a Prospective Caveat: Georgia High Court Holds Daubert Inapplicable to Pre‑2022 Criminal Trials and Reaffirms Harper/Belton for Footwear Testimony Introduction...
Actual Knowledge Is Awareness of the Hazard Itself, Not Its Precise Location: Georgia Supreme Court Clarifies “Specific Hazard” and Limits Constructive-Knowledge Principles in Premises Liability

Actual Knowledge Is Awareness of the Hazard Itself, Not Its Precise Location: Georgia Supreme Court Clarifies “Specific Hazard” and Limits Constructive-Knowledge Principles in Premises Liability

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Actual Knowledge Is Awareness of the Hazard Itself, Not Its Precise Location: Georgia Supreme Court Clarifies “Specific Hazard” and Limits Constructive-Knowledge Principles in Premises Liability...
Smith v. State: Clarifying the Timberlake Framework for Extraordinary Motions Based on New Expert Scientific Analysis

Smith v. State: Clarifying the Timberlake Framework for Extraordinary Motions Based on New Expert Scientific Analysis

Date: Oct 17, 2025
Smith v. State: Clarifying the Timberlake Framework for Extraordinary Motions Based on New Expert Scientific Analysis Court: Supreme Court of Georgia Date: October 15, 2025 Citation: S25A0548 Author:...
No “Basic Fairness” Shortcut: Georgia Supreme Court Requires Explicit Rule 401/403 Analysis Before Excluding Social-Media Gang Evidence (State v. Sims)

No “Basic Fairness” Shortcut: Georgia Supreme Court Requires Explicit Rule 401/403 Analysis Before Excluding Social-Media Gang Evidence (State v. Sims)

Date: Oct 17, 2025
No “Basic Fairness” Shortcut: Georgia Supreme Court Requires Explicit Rule 401/403 Analysis Before Excluding Social-Media Gang Evidence Commentary on State v. Sims, Supreme Court of Georgia (Oct. 15,...
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