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

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

Fourth Circuit Clarifies Enforceability of Appeal-Waivers after § 924(c) Vacatur: A Commentary on United States v. Stanislav Yelizarov (2025)

Fourth Circuit Clarifies Enforceability of Appeal-Waivers after § 924(c) Vacatur: A Commentary on United States v. Stanislav Yelizarov (2025)

Date: Jun 25, 2025
Fourth Circuit Clarifies Enforceability of Appeal-Waivers after § 924(c) Vacatur: A Commentary on United States v. Stanislav Yelizarov (2025) 1. Introduction In United States v. Stanislav Yelizarov,...
Biers v. Dentons US: Tenth Circuit Clarifies Appealability of Interlocutory Orders and Reinforces Limits on Stand-Alone Cross-Claims

Biers v. Dentons US: Tenth Circuit Clarifies Appealability of Interlocutory Orders and Reinforces Limits on Stand-Alone Cross-Claims

Date: Jun 25, 2025
Biers v. Dentons US: Tenth Circuit Clarifies Appealability of Interlocutory Orders and Reinforces Limits on Stand-Alone Cross-Claims Introduction In Biers v. Dentons US LLP, the United States Court...
Teetz v. Stepien: The Tenth Circuit Brands Prolonged Prone Restraint of a Subdued Detainee as “Deadly Force”

Teetz v. Stepien: The Tenth Circuit Brands Prolonged Prone Restraint of a Subdued Detainee as “Deadly Force”

Date: Jun 25, 2025
Teetz v. Stepien: The Tenth Circuit Brands Prolonged Prone Restraint of a Subdued Detainee as “Deadly Force” Introduction In Teetz v. Stepien, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit...
Always Compare the Defendant to Actual Participants: Berryhill’s Clarification of § 3B1.2 Mitigating-Role Analysis

Always Compare the Defendant to Actual Participants: Berryhill’s Clarification of § 3B1.2 Mitigating-Role Analysis

Date: Jun 25, 2025
Always Compare the Defendant to Actual Participants: United States v. Berryhill and the Clarified Duty to Perform a Relative-Culpability Analysis Under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 Introduction United States v....

        United States v. Roark: Tenth Circuit Clarifies (1) When Failure to Give a Specific-Unanimity Instruction Constitutes Reversible Plain Error and 
        (2) A District Court’s Power to Vacate Its Own Erroneous Rule 29 Acquittal Without Offending Double Jeopardy

United States v. Roark: Tenth Circuit Clarifies (1) When Failure to Give a Specific-Unanimity Instruction Constitutes Reversible Plain Error and (2) A District Court’s Power to Vacate Its Own Erroneous Rule 29 Acquittal Without Offending Double Jeopardy

Date: Jun 25, 2025
United States v. Roark: Tenth Circuit Clarifies (1) When Failure to Give a Specific-Unanimity Instruction Constitutes Reversible Plain Error and (2) A District Court’s Power to Vacate Its Own...
Dismissal without Prejudice for Corporate Suspension Does Not Constitute “Favorable Termination” in Malicious-Prosecution Actions – A Commentary on Wyles v. Sussman (10th Cir. 2025)

Dismissal without Prejudice for Corporate Suspension Does Not Constitute “Favorable Termination” in Malicious-Prosecution Actions – A Commentary on Wyles v. Sussman (10th Cir. 2025)

Date: Jun 25, 2025
Dismissal without Prejudice for Corporate Suspension Does Not Constitute “Favorable Termination” in Malicious-Prosecution Actions A Comprehensive Commentary on Wyles v. Sussman, 10th Cir., 23 June...
“Improvidently Granted” Dismissals Must Be Explained:  A Commentary on Scot Van Oudenhoven v. Wisconsin DOJ, 2025 WI 25

“Improvidently Granted” Dismissals Must Be Explained: A Commentary on Scot Van Oudenhoven v. Wisconsin DOJ, 2025 WI 25

Date: Jun 25, 2025
“Improvidently Granted” Dismissals Must Be Explained: The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Continuing Debate in Scot Van Oudenhoven v. Wisconsin Department of Justice, 2025 WI 25 1. Introduction The...
“Speculation Is Not a Fact” – The Montana Supreme Court’s Clarification of Due-Process Limits on Victim-Impact Statements in State v. C. Jacob

“Speculation Is Not a Fact” – The Montana Supreme Court’s Clarification of Due-Process Limits on Victim-Impact Statements in State v. C. Jacob

Date: Jun 25, 2025
“Speculation Is Not a Fact” – The Montana Supreme Court’s Clarification of Due-Process Limits on Victim-Impact Statements in State v. C. Jacob I. Introduction On 24 June 2025, the Supreme Court of...
Transparency in “Improvidently Granted” Dismissals:  Van Oudenhoven v. Wisconsin DOJ

Transparency in “Improvidently Granted” Dismissals: Van Oudenhoven v. Wisconsin DOJ

Date: Jun 25, 2025
Transparency in “Improvidently Granted” Dismissals: Van Oudenhoven v. Wisconsin Department of Justice Introduction In Scot Van Oudenhoven v. Wisconsin Department of Justice, 2025 WI 25, the Wisconsin...
“Participants, Not Accessories” – The Refined Scope of Felony-Murder Liability under § 53a-54c after State v. Hinton (2025)

“Participants, Not Accessories” – The Refined Scope of Felony-Murder Liability under § 53a-54c after State v. Hinton (2025)

Date: Jun 25, 2025
“Participants, Not Accessories” – The Refined Scope of Felony-Murder Liability under § 53a-54c after State v. Hinton (Conn. 2025) 1. Introduction The Supreme Court of Connecticut, in State v. Hinton,...
State v. Matthews: Re-defining the Weight of Officer Testimony versus Dash-Cam Evidence in Particularized Suspicion Analysis

State v. Matthews: Re-defining the Weight of Officer Testimony versus Dash-Cam Evidence in Particularized Suspicion Analysis

Date: Jun 25, 2025
State v. Matthews: Re-defining the Weight of Officer Testimony versus Dash-Cam Evidence in Particularized Suspicion Analysis Introduction State v. T. Matthews, 2025 MT 129, presented the Montana...
Waiver-by-Mootness:  The Montana Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction After Insurer’s Post-Payment “Reservation of Rights”  (Commentary on Perea v. AmTrust Ins., 2025 MT 130)

Waiver-by-Mootness: The Montana Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction After Insurer’s Post-Payment “Reservation of Rights” (Commentary on Perea v. AmTrust Ins., 2025 MT 130)

Date: Jun 25, 2025
Waiver-by-Mootness: The Montana Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction After Insurer’s Post-Payment “Reservation of Rights” Commentary on Perea v. AmTrust Insurance Co., 2025 MT 130 Introduction Perea...
“No Live Case, No Power to Hear”:  Hawkins v. State (2025) and the Jurisdictional Pre-Condition for Interlocutory Appeals from the Montana Tax Appeal Board

“No Live Case, No Power to Hear”: Hawkins v. State (2025) and the Jurisdictional Pre-Condition for Interlocutory Appeals from the Montana Tax Appeal Board

Date: Jun 25, 2025
“No Live Case, No Power to Hear”: Hawkins v. State, 2025 MT 134 — Cementing the Rule that District Court Interlocutory Jurisdiction under § 15-2-305, MCA, Requires an Active MTAB Proceeding...
Expanding the “Position of Trust”: Pearson v. State Affirms Volunteer Fire-Service Officers as Authorities under 11 Del. C. § 761(e)(2)

Expanding the “Position of Trust”: Pearson v. State Affirms Volunteer Fire-Service Officers as Authorities under 11 Del. C. § 761(e)(2)

Date: Jun 25, 2025
Expanding the “Position of Trust”: Pearson v. State Affirms Volunteer Fire-Service Officers as Authorities under 11 Del. C. § 761(e)(2) Introduction Pearson v. State, No. 268, 2024 (Del. June 24,...
“Merits-Blind” Class Certification in Wisconsin – Commentary on Nicole McDaniel v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections, 2025 WI 24

“Merits-Blind” Class Certification in Wisconsin – Commentary on Nicole McDaniel v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections, 2025 WI 24

Date: Jun 25, 2025
“Merits-Blind” Class Certification in Wisconsin – Commentary on Nicole McDaniel v. Wisconsin Department of Corrections, 2025 WI 24 I. Introduction The Supreme Court of Wisconsin’s decision in Nicole...
The “Reasonable-Basis & Distinctiveness” Doctrine: Idaho Supreme Court Re-defines Fiscal Impact Statements and Ballot Title Duties in Idahoans United for Women and Families v. Labrador

The “Reasonable-Basis & Distinctiveness” Doctrine: Idaho Supreme Court Re-defines Fiscal Impact Statements and Ballot Title Duties in Idahoans United for Women and Families v. Labrador

Date: Jun 25, 2025
The “Reasonable-Basis & Distinctiveness” Doctrine: Idaho Supreme Court Re-defines Fiscal Impact Statements and Ballot Title Duties in Idahoans United for Women and Families v. Labrador (2025) 1....
Guidance ≠ Rule: The Wisconsin Supreme Court Clarifies that DNR May Enforce the Spills Law Without Substance-Specific Rulemaking

Guidance ≠ Rule: The Wisconsin Supreme Court Clarifies that DNR May Enforce the Spills Law Without Substance-Specific Rulemaking

Date: Jun 25, 2025
Guidance ≠ Rule: The Wisconsin Supreme Court Clarifies that DNR May Enforce the Spills Law Without Substance-Specific Rulemaking 1. Introduction In Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Inc. v....
Distinct Penetrations, Distinct Crimes: State v. Foster Establishes Clear Test for Multiple Sexual-Offense Charges and Limits on Presence-of-Defendant Error

Distinct Penetrations, Distinct Crimes: State v. Foster Establishes Clear Test for Multiple Sexual-Offense Charges and Limits on Presence-of-Defendant Error

Date: Jun 25, 2025
Distinct Penetrations, Distinct Crimes: State v. Foster Establishes Clear Test for Multiple Sexual-Offense Charges and Limits on Presence-of-Defendant Error Introduction State v. Donald Edward...
“Rebutting the Fit-Parent Presumption” – Grandchild Visitation of A.L.U. (2025 MT 131)

“Rebutting the Fit-Parent Presumption” – Grandchild Visitation of A.L.U. (2025 MT 131)

Date: Jun 25, 2025
“Rebutting the Fit-Parent Presumption” – Grandchild Visitation of A.L.U. (Supreme Court of Montana, 2025 MT 131) Introduction In In re the Grandparent–Grandchild Visitation of A.L.U., 2025 MT 131,...
“The Jones Jurisdiction Principle” – Delaware Clarifies That Indictment Amendments and Element-Omissions in a Plea Colloquy Are Not Jurisdictional Defects

“The Jones Jurisdiction Principle” – Delaware Clarifies That Indictment Amendments and Element-Omissions in a Plea Colloquy Are Not Jurisdictional Defects

Date: Jun 24, 2025
“The Jones Jurisdiction Principle” – Delaware Clarifies That Indictment Amendments and Element-Omissions in a Plea Colloquy Are Not Jurisdictional Defects Introduction Jones v. State, No. 108, 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