Log In
  • India
  • 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)
  • Federal
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Federal Circuit
    1st Circuit
    2d Circuit
    3d Circuit
    4th Circuit
    5th Circuit
    6th Circuit
    7th Circuit
    8th Circuit
    9th Circuit
    10th Circuit
    11th Circuit
    Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Special Courts
    Bankruptcy
  • State
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arkansas
    Arizona
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    District Of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia
    Guam
    Hawaii
    Iowa
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana
    Massachusetts
    Maryland
    Maine
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Missouri
    Mississippi
    Montana
    Nebraska
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    Northern Mariana Islands
    New Mexico
    Nevada
    New York
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Virginia
    Vermont
    Washington
    Wisconsin
    West Virginia
    Wyoming
Log In Sign Up US Judgments
  • India
  • 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-&amp Case Commentaries

Maher v. Maher: Vermont Supreme Court Affirms Trial-Court Discretion to Confine Long‑Weekend Parenting Time to the Child’s Residence and to Prioritize Primary‑Caregiver and Community‑Continuity Factors Under 15 V.S.A. § 665

Maher v. Maher: Vermont Supreme Court Affirms Trial-Court Discretion to Confine Long‑Weekend Parenting Time to the Child’s Residence and to Prioritize Primary‑Caregiver and Community‑Continuity Factors Under 15 V.S.A. § 665

Date: Sep 6, 2025
Maher v. Maher: Vermont Supreme Court Affirms Trial-Court Discretion to Confine Long‑Weekend Parenting Time to the Child’s Residence and to Prioritize Primary‑Caregiver and Community‑Continuity...
No Immunity Without Compliance: Vermont Affirms Tow-Company Duty of Care and Sufficiency of Owner Testimony for Missing Vehicle Contents

No Immunity Without Compliance: Vermont Affirms Tow-Company Duty of Care and Sufficiency of Owner Testimony for Missing Vehicle Contents

Date: Sep 6, 2025
No Immunity Without Compliance: Vermont Affirms Tow-Company Duty of Care and Sufficiency of Owner Testimony for Missing Vehicle Contents Grey Barreda v. Handy's Service Center, Vermont Supreme Court,...
Easements Run With the Dominant Estate They Are Granted To: No Expansion to After-Acquired Parcels Absent Express Grant or Necessity

Easements Run With the Dominant Estate They Are Granted To: No Expansion to After-Acquired Parcels Absent Express Grant or Necessity

Date: Sep 6, 2025
Easements Run With the Dominant Estate They Are Granted To: No Expansion to After-Acquired Parcels Absent Express Grant or Necessity Introduction This commentary examines the Vermont Supreme Court’s...
Ownership Without Certificates: Paid‑In Shares and Corporate Records Determine Stock Interests Under Guam’s Clear‑Error Review

Ownership Without Certificates: Paid‑In Shares and Corporate Records Determine Stock Interests Under Guam’s Clear‑Error Review

Date: Sep 6, 2025
Ownership Without Certificates: Paid‑In Shares and Corporate Records Determine Stock Interests Under Guam’s Clear‑Error Review Introduction In Franklin J. Gutierrez, Individually and as...
Limiting Anderson’s First‑Filed Rule: District Courts Need Not Defer to the Industrial Commission on Idaho Code § 72‑209(3) “Willful or Unprovoked Physical Aggression” — Dominguez Partially Overruled

Limiting Anderson’s First‑Filed Rule: District Courts Need Not Defer to the Industrial Commission on Idaho Code § 72‑209(3) “Willful or Unprovoked Physical Aggression” — Dominguez Partially Overruled

Date: Sep 5, 2025
Limiting Anderson’s First‑Filed Rule: District Courts Need Not Defer to the Industrial Commission on Idaho Code § 72‑209(3) “Willful or Unprovoked Physical Aggression” — Dominguez Partially Overruled...
Row v. State: Shinn Is Not a Trigger for Successive State Post‑Conviction Relief and Rule 44.2 Does Not Create a Right to Effective Post‑Conviction Counsel

Row v. State: Shinn Is Not a Trigger for Successive State Post‑Conviction Relief and Rule 44.2 Does Not Create a Right to Effective Post‑Conviction Counsel

Date: Sep 5, 2025
Row v. State: Shinn Is Not a Trigger for Successive State Post‑Conviction Relief and Rule 44.2 Does Not Create a Right to Effective Post‑Conviction Counsel Introduction In Row v. State, the Idaho...
Traditional Standing vs. Contractual Entitlement: Guam Supreme Court Limits “Abandonment” and Recalibrates Summary Judgment Burdens in Cho v. Alupang Beach Club (2025 Guam 3)

Traditional Standing vs. Contractual Entitlement: Guam Supreme Court Limits “Abandonment” and Recalibrates Summary Judgment Burdens in Cho v. Alupang Beach Club (2025 Guam 3)

Date: Sep 5, 2025
Traditional Standing vs. Contractual Entitlement: Guam Supreme Court Limits “Abandonment” and Recalibrates Summary Judgment Burdens in Cho v. Alupang Beach Club (2025 Guam 3) Introduction In a...
ADA Noncompliance Is Not a Defense to Termination of Parental Rights in New Hampshire: Commentary on In re K.O., 2025 N.H. 39

ADA Noncompliance Is Not a Defense to Termination of Parental Rights in New Hampshire: Commentary on In re K.O., 2025 N.H. 39

Date: Sep 5, 2025
ADA Noncompliance Is Not a Defense to Termination of Parental Rights in New Hampshire Commentary on In re K.O., 2025 N.H. 39 (N.H. Sept. 4, 2025) Introduction In In re K.O., 2025 N.H. 39, the New...
Massey v. State: Delaware Supreme Court Confirms Threshold Indicia of Falsity Required to Impeach with Prior Sexual Assault Allegations; Affirms Trial Courts’ Discretion to Allow Child-Comfort Aids

Massey v. State: Delaware Supreme Court Confirms Threshold Indicia of Falsity Required to Impeach with Prior Sexual Assault Allegations; Affirms Trial Courts’ Discretion to Allow Child-Comfort Aids

Date: Sep 5, 2025
Massey v. State: Delaware Supreme Court Confirms Threshold Indicia of Falsity Required to Impeach with Prior Sexual Assault Allegations; Affirms Trial Courts’ Discretion to Allow Child-Comfort Aids...
Admissibility and Diligence as Gatekeepers in Successive Rule 3.851 Motions: Florida Supreme Court Rejects Third-Party Confession Declarations and “New Support for Old Claims”

Admissibility and Diligence as Gatekeepers in Successive Rule 3.851 Motions: Florida Supreme Court Rejects Third-Party Confession Declarations and “New Support for Old Claims”

Date: Sep 5, 2025
Admissibility and Diligence as Gatekeepers in Successive Rule 3.851 Motions: Florida Supreme Court Rejects Third-Party Confession Declarations and “New Support for Old Claims” Introduction In Ernest...
Fraud Scienter Clarified and Disclosure Act Accrual Fixed at Closing: The Idaho Supreme Court’s Dual Holdings in VanRenselaar v. Batres

Fraud Scienter Clarified and Disclosure Act Accrual Fixed at Closing: The Idaho Supreme Court’s Dual Holdings in VanRenselaar v. Batres

Date: Sep 5, 2025
Fraud Scienter Clarified and Disclosure Act Accrual Fixed at Closing: The Idaho Supreme Court’s Dual Holdings in VanRenselaar v. Batres Introduction In VanRenselaar v. Batres, the Idaho Supreme Court...
Ohio Supreme Court mandates facility‑specific “rate for direct care costs” drives 60% allocation to nursing‑home quality pool under R.C. 5165.26(E)

Ohio Supreme Court mandates facility‑specific “rate for direct care costs” drives 60% allocation to nursing‑home quality pool under R.C. 5165.26(E)

Date: Sep 4, 2025
Facility‑Specific “Rate for Direct Care Costs,” Not Group “Price,” Controls the 60% Quality‑Pool Allocation: A Textualist Course Correction in Medicaid Nursing‑Home Payments Case Overview Decision:...
Swearing-In Does Not Moot Eligibility Challenges; Election-Law Injunctions Must Satisfy Montana’s Four-Factor Test

Swearing-In Does Not Moot Eligibility Challenges; Election-Law Injunctions Must Satisfy Montana’s Four-Factor Test

Date: Sep 4, 2025
Swearing-In Does Not Moot Eligibility Challenges; Election-Law Injunctions Must Satisfy Montana’s Four-Factor Test Case: Bartel v. Middlestead, 2025 MT 195 (Mont. Sept. 2, 2025) Court: Supreme Court...
“Taxes Relating to the Property” in Liquidation MOUs: No Implied Duty to Reserve for a Debtor’s Capital Gains; Extrinsic Evidence Controls Before Contra Proferentem

“Taxes Relating to the Property” in Liquidation MOUs: No Implied Duty to Reserve for a Debtor’s Capital Gains; Extrinsic Evidence Controls Before Contra Proferentem

Date: Sep 4, 2025
“Taxes Relating to the Property” in Liquidation MOUs: No Implied Duty to Reserve for a Debtor’s Capital Gains; Extrinsic Evidence Controls Before Contra Proferentem Introduction Gabert v. Seaman,...
Johnson v. State Farm (Mont. 2025): Attorney Fees Are Part of “Made Whole,” But Only for Covered Losses; Coverage‑Segmented Subrogation Clarified

Johnson v. State Farm (Mont. 2025): Attorney Fees Are Part of “Made Whole,” But Only for Covered Losses; Coverage‑Segmented Subrogation Clarified

Date: Sep 4, 2025
Johnson v. State Farm (Mont. 2025): Attorney Fees Are Part of “Made Whole,” But Only for Covered Losses; Coverage‑Segmented Subrogation Clarified Introduction In Johnson v. State Farm Ins., 2025 MT...
Probable Cause Must Exist at the Moment of Seizure: Montana Supreme Court Clarifies the Line Between Extended Traffic Stops and Evidentiary Vehicle Seizures

Probable Cause Must Exist at the Moment of Seizure: Montana Supreme Court Clarifies the Line Between Extended Traffic Stops and Evidentiary Vehicle Seizures

Date: Sep 4, 2025
Probable Cause Must Exist at the Moment of Seizure: Montana Supreme Court Clarifies the Line Between Extended Traffic Stops and Evidentiary Vehicle Seizures Introduction In State v....
Plain and Cumulative Error Narrowly Applied; Isolated Doyle Reference Deemed Nonprejudicial; Mandatory Jail‑Time Credit Correction — Commentary on State v. Martinez (2025 MT 197N)

Plain and Cumulative Error Narrowly Applied; Isolated Doyle Reference Deemed Nonprejudicial; Mandatory Jail‑Time Credit Correction — Commentary on State v. Martinez (2025 MT 197N)

Date: Sep 4, 2025
Plain and Cumulative Error Narrowly Applied; Isolated Doyle Reference Deemed Nonprejudicial; Mandatory Jail‑Time Credit Correction — Commentary on State v. Martinez (2025 MT 197N) Introduction This...
Harmlessness of Replaying Testimonial Evidence Absent a “Particularized Need,” and Strict Prerequisites for Structural Error in Jury Selection — Commentary on State v. Purkhiser (Montana Supreme Court)

Harmlessness of Replaying Testimonial Evidence Absent a “Particularized Need,” and Strict Prerequisites for Structural Error in Jury Selection — Commentary on State v. Purkhiser (Montana Supreme Court)

Date: Sep 4, 2025
Harmlessness of Replaying Testimonial Evidence Absent a “Particularized Need,” and Strict Prerequisites for Structural Error in Jury Selection — Commentary on State v. Purkhiser (Montana Supreme...
Connecticut Adopts a Balancing Test for Prearrest Delay Under the State Due Process Clauses: Commentary on State v. McFarland (2025)

Connecticut Adopts a Balancing Test for Prearrest Delay Under the State Due Process Clauses: Commentary on State v. McFarland (2025)

Date: Sep 4, 2025
Connecticut Adopts a Balancing Test for Prearrest Delay Under the State Due Process Clauses: Commentary on State v. McFarland (2025) Introduction State v. McFarland is a landmark decision of the...
State v. McFarland: Connecticut Adopts a State Due Process Balancing Test for Pre‑Accusation Delay—Concurrence Urges Retaining Marion–Lovasco

State v. McFarland: Connecticut Adopts a State Due Process Balancing Test for Pre‑Accusation Delay—Concurrence Urges Retaining Marion–Lovasco

Date: Sep 4, 2025
State v. McFarland: Connecticut Adopts a State Due Process Balancing Test for Pre‑Accusation Delay—Concurrence Urges Retaining Marion–Lovasco Introduction In State v. McFarland (Conn. Sept. 2, 2025),...
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
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert