Log In
  • India
  • US
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)
  • Commentaries
    United Kingdom
    England and Wales
    Scotland
    Northern Ireland
    Ireland
Log In Sign Up UK Judgments
  • India
  • US

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

Reaffirming Rule 35(a)’s Narrow Reach and the Definite Sentencing Scheme for Voluntary Manslaughter in West Virginia

Reaffirming Rule 35(a)’s Narrow Reach and the Definite Sentencing Scheme for Voluntary Manslaughter in West Virginia

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Reaffirming Rule 35(a)’s Narrow Reach and the Definite Sentencing Scheme for Voluntary Manslaughter in West Virginia Introduction This commentary examines the Supreme Court of Appeals of West...
Failure to Enter Court-Ordered Substance Abuse Treatment Supports “No Reasonable Likelihood” Finding and Termination of Parental Rights

Failure to Enter Court-Ordered Substance Abuse Treatment Supports “No Reasonable Likelihood” Finding and Termination of Parental Rights

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Failure to Enter Court-Ordered Substance Abuse Treatment Supports “No Reasonable Likelihood” Finding and Termination of Parental Rights Introduction In re S.H., No. 24-555 (W. Va. Sept. 10, 2025), is...
Belated, Insincere Acknowledgment Is Insufficient for an Improvement Period; Termination May Proceed Even When the Other Parent Is Fit — In re S.B., H.B., D.B., and N.B.

Belated, Insincere Acknowledgment Is Insufficient for an Improvement Period; Termination May Proceed Even When the Other Parent Is Fit — In re S.B., H.B., D.B., and N.B.

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Belated, Insincere Acknowledgment Is Insufficient for an Improvement Period; Termination May Proceed Even When the Other Parent Is Fit — In re S.B., H.B., D.B., and N.B. Introduction This memorandum...
Affirmance on Alternative Merits Grounds and Strict Limits on Pro Se Repleading: No First Amendment Bivens and WPA Applies Only to Federal Employees

Affirmance on Alternative Merits Grounds and Strict Limits on Pro Se Repleading: No First Amendment Bivens and WPA Applies Only to Federal Employees

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Affirmance on Alternative Merits Grounds and Strict Limits on Pro Se Repleading: No First Amendment Bivens and WPA Applies Only to Federal Employees Introduction In Jean Guillaume v. United States...
In re H.C.: No Automatic Post‑Guardianship Visitation—Parental Rehabilitation Alone Is Insufficient Absent a Strong Bond and Best‑Interests Showing

In re H.C.: No Automatic Post‑Guardianship Visitation—Parental Rehabilitation Alone Is Insufficient Absent a Strong Bond and Best‑Interests Showing

Date: Sep 11, 2025
In re H.C.: No Automatic Post‑Guardianship Visitation—Parental Rehabilitation Alone Is Insufficient Absent a Strong Bond and Best‑Interests Showing Introduction This memorandum decision from the...
In re F.S.: Compelled Treatment, Aggravated Circumstances, and the Written-Motion Requirement for Improvement Periods

In re F.S.: Compelled Treatment, Aggravated Circumstances, and the Written-Motion Requirement for Improvement Periods

Date: Sep 11, 2025
In re F.S.: Compelled Treatment, Aggravated Circumstances, and the Written-Motion Requirement for Improvement Periods Introduction In this memorandum decision, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West...
Second Circuit: Rule 37(b) Attorney Sanctions—Including MDL Leadership Removal and Common Benefit Restrictions—Are Not Immediately Appealable Under the Collateral Order Doctrine

Second Circuit: Rule 37(b) Attorney Sanctions—Including MDL Leadership Removal and Common Benefit Restrictions—Are Not Immediately Appealable Under the Collateral Order Doctrine

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Second Circuit: Rule 37(b) Attorney Sanctions—Including MDL Leadership Removal and Common Benefit Restrictions—Are Not Immediately Appealable Under the Collateral Order Doctrine Introduction In In...
Reaffirming That Noncompliance With DHS Services Precludes an Improvement Period and Supports Termination: In re E.Y. and G.S.

Reaffirming That Noncompliance With DHS Services Precludes an Improvement Period and Supports Termination: In re E.Y. and G.S.

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Reaffirming That Noncompliance With DHS Services Precludes an Improvement Period and Supports Termination: In re E.Y. and G.S. Introduction In In re E.Y. and G.S., No. 24-358 (W. Va. Sept. 10, 2025)...
Finality First: Second-in-Time §2255 Filings During a Pending Appeal Are “Second or Successive”; District Courts Must Consider §3553(a) When Asked to Modify Supervised-Release Conditions

Finality First: Second-in-Time §2255 Filings During a Pending Appeal Are “Second or Successive”; District Courts Must Consider §3553(a) When Asked to Modify Supervised-Release Conditions

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Finality First: Second-in-Time §2255 Filings During a Pending Appeal Are “Second or Successive”; District Courts Must Consider §3553(a) When Asked to Modify Supervised-Release Conditions Introduction...
Child Disclosures and Behavioral Corroboration Can Meet the Clear-and-Convincing Standard Without Physical Evidence; Rule 19(b) Permits Reopened Adjudications on Amended Allegations

Child Disclosures and Behavioral Corroboration Can Meet the Clear-and-Convincing Standard Without Physical Evidence; Rule 19(b) Permits Reopened Adjudications on Amended Allegations

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Child Disclosures and Behavioral Corroboration Can Meet the Clear-and-Convincing Standard Without Physical Evidence; Rule 19(b) Permits Reopened Adjudications on Amended Allegations Introduction In...
New York Claim Preclusion Reaffirmed: “Convenient Trial Unit” Is Non‑Dispositive; Different Contracts Do Not Avoid Res Judicata When Tied to the Same Transactional Nucleus

New York Claim Preclusion Reaffirmed: “Convenient Trial Unit” Is Non‑Dispositive; Different Contracts Do Not Avoid Res Judicata When Tied to the Same Transactional Nucleus

Date: Sep 11, 2025
New York Claim Preclusion Reaffirmed: “Convenient Trial Unit” Is Non‑Dispositive; Different Contracts Do Not Avoid Res Judicata When Tied to the Same Transactional Nucleus Introduction This...
Tenth Circuit Clarifies Appeal-Waiver Cap Tied to a Fixed Offense Level: A Sentence Below the Level-35 Top End Is Unappealable Even If the Court Calculates a Higher Offense Level

Tenth Circuit Clarifies Appeal-Waiver Cap Tied to a Fixed Offense Level: A Sentence Below the Level-35 Top End Is Unappealable Even If the Court Calculates a Higher Offense Level

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Tenth Circuit Clarifies Appeal-Waiver Cap Tied to a Fixed Offense Level: A Sentence Below the Level-35 Top End Is Unappealable Even If the Court Calculates a Higher Offense Level Introduction In...
Proof of Contractual Default Notices Must Come From the Mailer or Contemporaneous Records: Wilmington Trust, N.A. v. Singh

Proof of Contractual Default Notices Must Come From the Mailer or Contemporaneous Records: Wilmington Trust, N.A. v. Singh

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Proof of Contractual Default Notices Must Come From the Mailer or Contemporaneous Records: Wilmington Trust, N.A. v. Singh Introduction In Wilmington Trust, N.A. v. Singh, 2025 NY Slip Op 04938 (App...
Pittman v. State (Fla. 2025): Reaffirming Phillips—Hall Is Not Retroactive and Intellectual-Disability Claims Remain Subject to Strict Time and Successiveness Bars

Pittman v. State (Fla. 2025): Reaffirming Phillips—Hall Is Not Retroactive and Intellectual-Disability Claims Remain Subject to Strict Time and Successiveness Bars

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Pittman v. State (Fla. 2025): Reaffirming Phillips—Hall Is Not Retroactive and Intellectual-Disability Claims Remain Subject to Strict Time and Successiveness Bars Introduction In David Joseph...
Principles-Based Sensitive-Places Doctrine: Third Circuit Upholds Most Location Bans, Invalidates Insurance Mandate and Private-Property Default in Koons v. Attorney General of New Jersey

Principles-Based Sensitive-Places Doctrine: Third Circuit Upholds Most Location Bans, Invalidates Insurance Mandate and Private-Property Default in Koons v. Attorney General of New Jersey

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Principles-Based Sensitive-Places Doctrine: Third Circuit Upholds Most Location Bans, Invalidates Insurance Mandate and Private-Property Default in Koons v. Attorney General of New Jersey...
Title VII Retaliation After a Sexual-Assault Report: Sixth Circuit Requires Proof of a Reasonable, Good‑Faith Belief in Nonconsent; Intrinsic Consent Evidence Not Barred by Rule 412

Title VII Retaliation After a Sexual-Assault Report: Sixth Circuit Requires Proof of a Reasonable, Good‑Faith Belief in Nonconsent; Intrinsic Consent Evidence Not Barred by Rule 412

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Title VII Retaliation After a Sexual-Assault Report: Sixth Circuit Requires Proof of a Reasonable, Good‑Faith Belief in Nonconsent; Intrinsic Consent Evidence Not Barred by Rule 412 Case: Samantha...
Nonjurisdictional Filing Defects and Estate Ownership of Product‑Line Successor Claims: Third Circuit’s Guidance in In re Whittaker Clark & Daniels

Nonjurisdictional Filing Defects and Estate Ownership of Product‑Line Successor Claims: Third Circuit’s Guidance in In re Whittaker Clark & Daniels

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Nonjurisdictional Filing Defects and Estate Ownership of Product‑Line Successor Claims: Third Circuit’s Guidance in In re Whittaker Clark & Daniels Introduction The Third Circuit’s precedential...
Master Plans Are Not Self-Executing: Idaho Supreme Court Holds Deed-Referenced Master Plans Are Relevant but Do Not Create Restrictive Covenants or Public Dedications Without Clear, Express Language

Master Plans Are Not Self-Executing: Idaho Supreme Court Holds Deed-Referenced Master Plans Are Relevant but Do Not Create Restrictive Covenants or Public Dedications Without Clear, Express Language

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Master Plans Are Not Self-Executing: Idaho Supreme Court Holds Deed-Referenced Master Plans Are Relevant but Do Not Create Restrictive Covenants or Public Dedications Without Clear, Express Language...
Case-Specific Findings Required in Habeas Orders; Incorporation from a Co-Defendant’s Case Is Insufficient When the Evidence Materially Differs — Spears v. Frame (W. Va. 2025)

Case-Specific Findings Required in Habeas Orders; Incorporation from a Co-Defendant’s Case Is Insufficient When the Evidence Materially Differs — Spears v. Frame (W. Va. 2025)

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Case-Specific Findings Required in Habeas Orders; Incorporation from a Co-Defendant’s Case Is Insufficient When the Evidence Materially Differs — Spears v. Frame (W. Va. 2025) Introduction In William...
Non-Exhaustive Duties Clauses Foreclose Extra-Compensation and Quasi-Contract Claims; Promissory Estoppel Requires Unconscionable Injury — Commentary on Holman v. St. John's Episcopal Hospital (2d Dept. 2025)

Non-Exhaustive Duties Clauses Foreclose Extra-Compensation and Quasi-Contract Claims; Promissory Estoppel Requires Unconscionable Injury — Commentary on Holman v. St. John's Episcopal Hospital (2d Dept. 2025)

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Non-Exhaustive Duties Clauses Foreclose Extra-Compensation and Quasi-Contract Claims; Promissory Estoppel Requires Unconscionable Injury — Holman v. St. John's Episcopal Hospital (2d Dept. 2025)...
Previous   Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo

Company

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie 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

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert

We use cookies to improve your experience

You can accept all cookies or turn off analytical ones.