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

reaffirmation-of-strict-liability-in-manufacturers&amp Case Commentaries

A Roof Is Not the Home: Public Exposure Defines “Outside the Home” under Penal Law § 265.03(3) and Limits on Miranda in On‑Scene Questioning — Commentary on People v. Casiano (2025)

A Roof Is Not the Home: Public Exposure Defines “Outside the Home” under Penal Law § 265.03(3) and Limits on Miranda in On‑Scene Questioning — Commentary on People v. Casiano (2025)

Date: Jul 26, 2025
A Roof Is Not the Home: Public Exposure Defines “Outside the Home” under Penal Law § 265.03(3) and Limits on Miranda in On‑Scene Questioning Commentary on People v. Casiano, 2025 NY Slip Op 04316...
Clarifying “Diligent Efforts” in Permanent Neglect: Agency Need Not Rely on Foster-Parent Transportation; Offering Bus Tickets Suffices — Matter of Ayden G. (Nicky C.)

Clarifying “Diligent Efforts” in Permanent Neglect: Agency Need Not Rely on Foster-Parent Transportation; Offering Bus Tickets Suffices — Matter of Ayden G. (Nicky C.)

Date: Jul 26, 2025
Clarifying “Diligent Efforts” in Permanent Neglect: Agency Need Not Rely on Foster-Parent Transportation; Offering Bus Tickets Suffices — Matter of Ayden G. (Nicky C.) Introduction This commentary...
Derivative Standing via Testamentary Trust Devolution and Temporal Limits on Faithless Servant Disgorgement: Commentary on Owen v. Hurlbut (2025 NY Slip Op 04311)

Derivative Standing via Testamentary Trust Devolution and Temporal Limits on Faithless Servant Disgorgement: Commentary on Owen v. Hurlbut (2025 NY Slip Op 04311)

Date: Jul 26, 2025
Derivative Standing via Testamentary Trust Devolution and Temporal Limits on Faithless Servant Disgorgement: Commentary on Owen v. Hurlbut (2025 NY Slip Op 04311) Introduction Owen v. Hurlbut is a...
Satisfying Nemeth in Friction-Product Asbestos Cases: Fourth Department Upholds Causation via Product-Specific Testing and Fiber‑Year Estimates

Satisfying Nemeth in Friction-Product Asbestos Cases: Fourth Department Upholds Causation via Product-Specific Testing and Fiber‑Year Estimates

Date: Jul 26, 2025
Satisfying Nemeth in Friction-Product Asbestos Cases: Fourth Department Upholds Causation via Product-Specific Testing and Fiber‑Year Estimates Introduction In Skrzynski v. Akebono Brake Corp. (2025...
Verbal “Stop” Command Alone Is Not a Seizure; Flight Plus Match to a Detailed 911 Description Creates Reasonable Suspicion for Pursuit — Commentary on People v. Wright (2025)

Verbal “Stop” Command Alone Is Not a Seizure; Flight Plus Match to a Detailed 911 Description Creates Reasonable Suspicion for Pursuit — Commentary on People v. Wright (2025)

Date: Jul 26, 2025
Verbal “Stop” Command Alone Is Not a Seizure; Flight Plus Match to a Detailed 911 Description Creates Reasonable Suspicion for Pursuit In-depth Commentary on People v. Wright, 2025 NY Slip Op 04345...
“One Letter Is Not Due Diligence”: People v. Ernst Clarifies Discovery Due Diligence and the Limits of CPL 30.30 Tolling for “Pending” Motions

“One Letter Is Not Due Diligence”: People v. Ernst Clarifies Discovery Due Diligence and the Limits of CPL 30.30 Tolling for “Pending” Motions

Date: Jul 26, 2025
“One Letter Is Not Due Diligence”: People v. Ernst Clarifies Discovery Due Diligence and the Limits of CPL 30.30 Tolling for “Pending” Motions Introduction People v. Ernst (2025 NY Slip Op 04329) is...
Directory Time Limits and Strict Accountability for Pro Hac Vice Admissions: The Delaware Supreme Court’s Decision in IMO John Du Wors

Directory Time Limits and Strict Accountability for Pro Hac Vice Admissions: The Delaware Supreme Court’s Decision in IMO John Du Wors

Date: Jul 26, 2025
Directory Time Limits and Strict Accountability for Pro Hac Vice Admissions: The Delaware Supreme Court’s Decision in IMO John Du Wors Introduction In In the Matter of John Du Wors, the Delaware...
Reply Briefs Cannot Salvage Unpreserved Issues: Kansas Supreme Court Requires Rule 6.02(a)(5) Exceptions in the Opening Brief (Schutt v. Foster)

Reply Briefs Cannot Salvage Unpreserved Issues: Kansas Supreme Court Requires Rule 6.02(a)(5) Exceptions in the Opening Brief (Schutt v. Foster)

Date: Jul 26, 2025
Reply Briefs Cannot Salvage Unpreserved Issues: Kansas Supreme Court Requires Rule 6.02(a)(5) Exceptions in the Opening Brief Case: Schutt v. Foster, No. 126,555 (Kan. July 25, 2025) Court: Supreme...
“High-Seas” Jurisdiction Embraces the Exclusive Economic Zone: A Commentary on United States v. Jose Junior Bailon Franco (11th Cir. 2025)

“High-Seas” Jurisdiction Embraces the Exclusive Economic Zone: A Commentary on United States v. Jose Junior Bailon Franco (11th Cir. 2025)

Date: Jul 25, 2025
“High-Seas” Jurisdiction Embraces the Exclusive Economic Zone: A Comprehensive Commentary on United States v. Jose Junior Bailon Franco (11th Cir. 2025) 1. Introduction United States v. Jose Junior...
“EEZ = High Seas”: The Eleventh Circuit’s Unpublished Re-affirmation of Congress’s Plenary Power under the MDLEA

“EEZ = High Seas”: The Eleventh Circuit’s Unpublished Re-affirmation of Congress’s Plenary Power under the MDLEA

Date: Jul 25, 2025
“EEZ = High Seas”: The Eleventh Circuit’s Unpublished Re-affirmation of Congress’s Plenary Power under the MDLEA 1. Introduction United States v. Nilson Olaya Grueso, Nos. 22-11929, 22-11932,...

        Sixth Circuit Clarifies Strickland: Impeachment Cross-Examination that Adds Damaging Facts
        Can Still Be “Reasonable Trial Strategy” under AEDPA – Commentary on Mark Hartman v. Dave Yost

Sixth Circuit Clarifies Strickland: Impeachment Cross-Examination that Adds Damaging Facts Can Still Be “Reasonable Trial Strategy” under AEDPA – Commentary on Mark Hartman v. Dave Yost

Date: Jul 25, 2025
Sixth Circuit Clarifies Strickland: Impeachment Cross-Examination that Adds Damaging Facts Can Still Be “Reasonable Trial Strategy” under AEDPA Commentary on Mark Hartman v. Dave Yost, Nos....
Reaffirming the “Every Fair-Minded Jurist” Threshold: The Sixth Circuit’s Double-Deference Clarification in Hartman v. Yost

Reaffirming the “Every Fair-Minded Jurist” Threshold: The Sixth Circuit’s Double-Deference Clarification in Hartman v. Yost

Date: Jul 25, 2025
Reaffirming the “Every Fair-Minded Jurist” Threshold: The Sixth Circuit’s Double-Deference Clarification in Hartman v. Yost Introduction In Mark Hartman v. Dave Yost, the United States Court of...
United States v. Taylor: Sixth Circuit Re-Affirms Minimal Explanation Standard for Within-Guidelines Sentences

United States v. Taylor: Sixth Circuit Re-Affirms Minimal Explanation Standard for Within-Guidelines Sentences

Date: Jul 25, 2025
United States v. Taylor: Sixth Circuit Re-Affirms Minimal Explanation Standard for Within-Guidelines Sentences 1. Introduction In United States v. Marty Taylor, No. 25-3022 (6th Cir. July 24, 2025)...
Dangerousness Without Remand: United States v. Meeks Solidifies Williams Framework and Clarifies Sentencing Cross-Reference for Felon-in-Possession Cases

Dangerousness Without Remand: United States v. Meeks Solidifies Williams Framework and Clarifies Sentencing Cross-Reference for Felon-in-Possession Cases

Date: Jul 25, 2025
Dangerousness Without Remand: United States v. Meeks Sixth Circuit further refines the Williams “actual dangerousness” test and endorses robust use of the homicide cross-reference at sentencing I....
Removal Alone Does Not Waive the Right to Arbitrate – A Detailed Commentary on DeLaCruz-Bancroft v. Field Nation, LLC

Removal Alone Does Not Waive the Right to Arbitrate – A Detailed Commentary on DeLaCruz-Bancroft v. Field Nation, LLC

Date: Jul 25, 2025
Removal Alone Does Not Waive the Right to Arbitrate: Tenth Circuit Consolidates the Firm Waiver Rule and Morgan v. Sundance in DeLaCruz-Bancroft v. Field Nation 1. Introduction The Tenth Circuit’s...
Ogden v. Attorney General (10th Cir. 2025): Re-affirming the Non-Applicability of Good-Time Credits to Life Sentences and Clarifying COA Standards

Ogden v. Attorney General (10th Cir. 2025): Re-affirming the Non-Applicability of Good-Time Credits to Life Sentences and Clarifying COA Standards

Date: Jul 25, 2025
Ogden v. Attorney General for the State of New Mexico (10th Cir. 2025): Re-affirming the Non-Applicability of Good-Time Credits to Life Sentences and Clarifying the Certificate-of-Appealability...
Tenth Circuit Affirms Broad BIA Discretion to Summarily Dismiss Appeals for Vague NOAs and Late Briefs – Commentary on Pena-Sanchez v. Bondi

Tenth Circuit Affirms Broad BIA Discretion to Summarily Dismiss Appeals for Vague NOAs and Late Briefs – Commentary on Pena-Sanchez v. Bondi

Date: Jul 25, 2025
Tenth Circuit Affirms Broad BIA Discretion to Summarily Dismiss Appeals for Vague NOAs and Late Briefs Pena-Sanchez v. Bondi, 24-9550 (10th Cir. July 24, 2025) I. Introduction In Pena-Sanchez...
United States v. Jumper: Tenth Circuit Affirms Statutory-Maximum Revocation Sentence & Refines Standards for Major Upward Variances

United States v. Jumper: Tenth Circuit Affirms Statutory-Maximum Revocation Sentence & Refines Standards for Major Upward Variances

Date: Jul 25, 2025
United States v. Jumper: Tenth Circuit Affirms Statutory-Maximum Revocation Sentence & Refines Standards for Major Upward Variances in Supervised-Release Cases 1. Introduction On 24 July 2025 the...
Greed-Driven Harm and the Nexus Requirement: Commentary on Cano-Gutierrez v. Bondi (1st Cir. 2025)

Greed-Driven Harm and the Nexus Requirement: Commentary on Cano-Gutierrez v. Bondi (1st Cir. 2025)

Date: Jul 25, 2025
Greed-Driven Harm and the Nexus Requirement: Cano-Gutierrez v. Bondi Clarifies Asylum Eligibility when Violence Is Motivated by Ordinary Crime Introduction In Cano-Gutierrez v. Bondi, the United...
“Working an Employee Out” after an Accommodation Request: The First Circuit’s Hard-Line on Rule 50 Preservation and Punitive Exposure in Menninger v. PPD Development, L.P.

“Working an Employee Out” after an Accommodation Request: The First Circuit’s Hard-Line on Rule 50 Preservation and Punitive Exposure in Menninger v. PPD Development, L.P.

Date: Jul 25, 2025
“Working an Employee Out” after an Accommodation Request: The First Circuit’s Hard-Line on Rule 50 Preservation and Punitive Exposure in Menninger v. PPD Development, L.P. Introduction In Menninger...
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