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

No Two‑Step Reconsideration Motions under WDCR 12(8)/DCR 13(7) and Sanctionable “Mediation‑as‑Pretext” Deception under RPC 4.1

No Two‑Step Reconsideration Motions under WDCR 12(8)/DCR 13(7) and Sanctionable “Mediation‑as‑Pretext” Deception under RPC 4.1

Date: Sep 12, 2025
No Two‑Step Reconsideration Motions under WDCR 12(8)/DCR 13(7) and Sanctionable “Mediation‑as‑Pretext” Deception under RPC 4.1 Case Controlled Contamination Services, LLC v. Dist. Ct. (Fredericks),...
Reinforcing Strict Rule 65 Compliance and the Apex Doctrine in Emergency Suits Against State Agencies: Commentary on Crook v. South Carolina Election Commission

Reinforcing Strict Rule 65 Compliance and the Apex Doctrine in Emergency Suits Against State Agencies: Commentary on Crook v. South Carolina Election Commission

Date: Sep 12, 2025
Reinforcing Strict Rule 65 Compliance and the Apex Doctrine in Emergency Suits Against State Agencies Case: Crook v. South Carolina Election Commission Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina Date:...
Ray’s Rule: Assault with a Deadly Weapon and Felony Harassment (Threat to Kill) Are Not the Same Offense Under Washington’s Blockburger Analysis

Ray’s Rule: Assault with a Deadly Weapon and Felony Harassment (Threat to Kill) Are Not the Same Offense Under Washington’s Blockburger Analysis

Date: Sep 12, 2025
Ray’s Rule: Assault with a Deadly Weapon and Felony Harassment (Threat to Kill) Are Not the Same Offense Under Washington’s Blockburger Analysis Introduction In State v. Owen Gale Ray, the Washington...
"Hands-On" Is Not "Hands-In": Indiana Supreme Court Permanently Bars Judge for Problem-Solving Court Boundary Violations and Conflicts — In the Matter of Matthew John Elkin

"Hands-On" Is Not "Hands-In": Indiana Supreme Court Permanently Bars Judge for Problem-Solving Court Boundary Violations and Conflicts — In the Matter of Matthew John Elkin

Date: Sep 12, 2025
"Hands-On" Is Not "Hands-In": Permanent Ban for Boundary Violations, Favoritism, and Conflicts in Problem-Solving Courts Introduction In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court of Indiana...
Wrongful‑Death Beneficiaries Stand in the Shoes of Government Employees: Mississippi Supreme Court Extends MTCA § 11-46-9(1)(l) Immunity to Bar Claims Against Any Governmental Entity and Upholds Statute’s Constitutionality

Wrongful‑Death Beneficiaries Stand in the Shoes of Government Employees: Mississippi Supreme Court Extends MTCA § 11-46-9(1)(l) Immunity to Bar Claims Against Any Governmental Entity and Upholds Statute’s Constitutionality

Date: Sep 12, 2025
Wrongful‑Death Beneficiaries Stand in the Shoes of Government Employees: Mississippi Supreme Court Extends MTCA § 11-46-9(1)(l) Immunity to Bar Claims Against Any Governmental Entity and Upholds...
Issue Preservation in Mississippi Tax Appeals: Chancery Court’s De Novo Review under § 27-77-7 Is Limited to Properly Appealed Questions; No Advisory Opinions

Issue Preservation in Mississippi Tax Appeals: Chancery Court’s De Novo Review under § 27-77-7 Is Limited to Properly Appealed Questions; No Advisory Opinions

Date: Sep 12, 2025
Issue Preservation in Mississippi Tax Appeals: Chancery Court’s De Novo Review under § 27-77-7 Is Limited to Properly Appealed Questions; No Advisory Opinions Case: Watkins Construction, Inc. v....
Nakoa III: Dual‑Check Standard for Emergency Proclamations, Mandatory HRS §127A‑27 Process, and Environmental‑Right Standing

Nakoa III: Dual‑Check Standard for Emergency Proclamations, Mandatory HRS §127A‑27 Process, and Environmental‑Right Standing

Date: Sep 12, 2025
Nakoa III: Dual‑Check Standard for Emergency Proclamations, Mandatory HRS §127A‑27 Process, and Environmental‑Right Standing Introduction In Nakoa III v. Governor of the State of Hawai‘i, the Hawai‘i...
Approving the Grievance Undercuts Retaliation; Eighteen Days Without a Mattress Is Not “Objectively Serious” Under the Eighth Amendment

Approving the Grievance Undercuts Retaliation; Eighteen Days Without a Mattress Is Not “Objectively Serious” Under the Eighth Amendment

Date: Sep 12, 2025
Approving the Grievance Undercuts Retaliation; Eighteen Days Without a Mattress Is Not “Objectively Serious” Under the Eighth Amendment Introduction In Eddie James Moultrie v. G. Edwards (11th Cir....
AMP Means the Price Realized: Seventh Circuit Holds Post‑Sale “Clawbacks” Must Be Included and Are Not Bona Fide Service Fees (United States ex rel. Streck v. Eli Lilly)

AMP Means the Price Realized: Seventh Circuit Holds Post‑Sale “Clawbacks” Must Be Included and Are Not Bona Fide Service Fees (United States ex rel. Streck v. Eli Lilly)

Date: Sep 12, 2025
AMP Means the Price Realized: Post‑Sale “Clawbacks” Must Be Included and Are Not Bona Fide Service Fees United States ex rel. Streck v. Eli Lilly and Company (7th Cir. Sept. 11, 2025) Introduction...
Respondent Must Invoke Right to Review Evidence: Second Circuit Reads 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(a)(4) as Advisory Only and Reaffirms Presumption of Competence in Removal Proceedings

Respondent Must Invoke Right to Review Evidence: Second Circuit Reads 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(a)(4) as Advisory Only and Reaffirms Presumption of Competence in Removal Proceedings

Date: Sep 12, 2025
Respondent Must Invoke Right to Review Evidence: Second Circuit Reads 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(a)(4) as Advisory Only and Reaffirms Presumption of Competence in Removal Proceedings Note: This is a summary...
Sixth Circuit: Employees Must Give “Reasonably Specific” Notice of Religious Conflicts; Safety Risks and Testing Logistics Can Create Title VII Undue Hardship

Sixth Circuit: Employees Must Give “Reasonably Specific” Notice of Religious Conflicts; Safety Risks and Testing Logistics Can Create Title VII Undue Hardship

Date: Sep 12, 2025
Sixth Circuit: Employees Must Give “Reasonably Specific” Notice of Religious Conflicts; Safety Risks and Testing Logistics Can Create Title VII Undue Hardship Introduction In Christina Henry v....
No Individualized Dangerousness Assessment for Drug‑Trafficking Felons Under § 922(g)(1): Fifth Circuit Harmonizes Reyes with Kimble in United States v. Orozco

No Individualized Dangerousness Assessment for Drug‑Trafficking Felons Under § 922(g)(1): Fifth Circuit Harmonizes Reyes with Kimble in United States v. Orozco

Date: Sep 12, 2025
No Individualized Dangerousness Assessment for Drug‑Trafficking Felons Under § 922(g)(1): Fifth Circuit Harmonizes Reyes with Kimble in United States v. Orozco Introduction In United States v....
Cross-Examination That Elicits Corroborative Medical Evidence Does Not Constitute Ineffective Assistance; Demeanor and Consistent Forensic Interviews Can Corroborate Child Hearsay Under FCA § 1046(a)(vi)

Cross-Examination That Elicits Corroborative Medical Evidence Does Not Constitute Ineffective Assistance; Demeanor and Consistent Forensic Interviews Can Corroborate Child Hearsay Under FCA § 1046(a)(vi)

Date: Sep 12, 2025
Cross-Examination That Elicits Corroborative Medical Evidence Does Not Constitute Ineffective Assistance; Demeanor and Consistent Forensic Interviews Can Corroborate Child Hearsay Under FCA §...
AMP Must Include Price-Value Clawbacks: The Seventh Circuit’s plain-meaning rule for Medicaid rebate reporting and the limits of “reasonable assumptions” under the FCA

AMP Must Include Price-Value Clawbacks: The Seventh Circuit’s plain-meaning rule for Medicaid rebate reporting and the limits of “reasonable assumptions” under the FCA

Date: Sep 12, 2025
AMP Must Include Price-Value Clawbacks: The Seventh Circuit’s plain-meaning rule for Medicaid rebate reporting and the limits of “reasonable assumptions” under the FCA Introduction In United States,...
“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...
TROs Create Presumptive Probable Cause and 2020 Anti‑SLAPP Amendments Are Not Retroactive: Commentary on GLD3, LLC v. Albra

TROs Create Presumptive Probable Cause and 2020 Anti‑SLAPP Amendments Are Not Retroactive: Commentary on GLD3, LLC v. Albra

Date: Sep 11, 2025
TROs Create Presumptive Probable Cause and 2020 Anti‑SLAPP Amendments Are Not Retroactive Commentary on GLD3, LLC v. Albra, 2025 NY Slip Op 04881 (2d Dept. Sept. 10, 2025) Introduction The Appellate...
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...
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