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

reinforcing-the-implied-covenant-of-good-faith-in-commercial-development-contracts:-anthony& Case Commentaries

Procedural Due Process and Permanency Timelines: Nevada Affirms the Constitutionality of NRS 128.109’s Rebuttable Presumptions in Termination of Parental Rights

Procedural Due Process and Permanency Timelines: Nevada Affirms the Constitutionality of NRS 128.109’s Rebuttable Presumptions in Termination of Parental Rights

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Procedural Due Process and Permanency Timelines: Nevada Affirms the Constitutionality of NRS 128.109’s Rebuttable Presumptions in Termination of Parental Rights Introduction In In re: Parental Rights...
Unauthorized Practice by Advice-and-Fee Acceptance During Suspension Warrants Suspension—Not Disbarment—Absent Direct Court Filings: In re Haley (La. 2025)

Unauthorized Practice by Advice-and-Fee Acceptance During Suspension Warrants Suspension—Not Disbarment—Absent Direct Court Filings: In re Haley (La. 2025)

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Unauthorized Practice by Advice-and-Fee Acceptance During Suspension Warrants Suspension—Not Disbarment—Absent Direct Court Filings: In re Haley (La. 2025) Case: In re: Ronald Sidney Haley, Jr., No....
Counsel’s Representation Suffices to Verify PSI Review Under Rule 32(c)(3)(A); Failure to Object Waives Challenge (State v. Layton)

Counsel’s Representation Suffices to Verify PSI Review Under Rule 32(c)(3)(A); Failure to Object Waives Challenge (State v. Layton)

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Counsel’s Representation Suffices to Verify PSI Review Under Rule 32(c)(3)(A); Failure to Object Waives Challenge Introduction In State of West Virginia v. Thomas Layton (No. 24-685), the Supreme...
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...
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