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

Haverkamp v. Linthicum: No Standing Without a Likely Medical Referral — Fifth Circuit Clarifies Traceability and Redressability in Prison-Surgery Challenges

Haverkamp v. Linthicum: No Standing Without a Likely Medical Referral — Fifth Circuit Clarifies Traceability and Redressability in Prison-Surgery Challenges

Date: Sep 12, 2025
Haverkamp v. Linthicum: No Standing Without a Likely Medical Referral — Fifth Circuit Clarifies Traceability and Redressability in Prison-Surgery Challenges Introduction In Haverkamp v. Linthicum,...
Clarifying “Antitrust Injury” vs. Substantive Pleading and Reaffirming Rule‑of‑Reason Requirements for Vertical Restraints: Amigo Shuttle v. Port Authority (2d Cir. 2025)

Clarifying “Antitrust Injury” vs. Substantive Pleading and Reaffirming Rule‑of‑Reason Requirements for Vertical Restraints: Amigo Shuttle v. Port Authority (2d Cir. 2025)

Date: Sep 12, 2025
Clarifying “Antitrust Injury” vs. Substantive Pleading and Reaffirming Rule‑of‑Reason Requirements for Vertical Restraints: Amigo Shuttle v. Port Authority (2d Cir. 2025) Court: U.S. Court of Appeals...
TROs Create Presumptive Probable Cause and 2020 Anti‑SLAPP Amendments Are Not Retroactive: Commentary on GLD3, LLC v. Albra

TROs Create Presumptive Probable Cause and 2020 Anti‑SLAPP Amendments Are Not Retroactive: Commentary on GLD3, LLC v. Albra

Date: Sep 11, 2025
TROs Create Presumptive Probable Cause and 2020 Anti‑SLAPP Amendments Are Not Retroactive Commentary on GLD3, LLC v. Albra, 2025 NY Slip Op 04881 (2d Dept. Sept. 10, 2025) Introduction The Appellate...
No Pendent Review of Contract Formation and Merits-First Litigation Defaults Arbitration Rights: Sixth Circuit Clarifies FAA §16(a) Scope and §3 “Default” in Schnatter v. 247 Group

No Pendent Review of Contract Formation and Merits-First Litigation Defaults Arbitration Rights: Sixth Circuit Clarifies FAA §16(a) Scope and §3 “Default” in Schnatter v. 247 Group

Date: Sep 11, 2025
No Pendent Review of Contract Formation and Merits-First Litigation Defaults Arbitration Rights: Sixth Circuit Clarifies FAA §16(a) Scope and §3 “Default” in Schnatter v. 247 Group Introduction In a...
Anonymity Without Gag Orders: Second Department Clarifies Limits on Speech Restraints and Pleading Particularity for Multimedia Defamation

Anonymity Without Gag Orders: Second Department Clarifies Limits on Speech Restraints and Pleading Particularity for Multimedia Defamation

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Anonymity Without Gag Orders: Second Department Clarifies Limits on Speech Restraints and Pleading Particularity for Multimedia Defamation Introduction In Doe v. Eliyas (2025 NY Slip Op 04876), the...
Disbarment as the Baseline for False Judicial Attacks and Ex Parte Contacts; Three-Year, Partially Deferred Suspension Where Misconduct Is Confined to the Courts — Commentary on In re Randazzo (La. 2025)

Disbarment as the Baseline for False Judicial Attacks and Ex Parte Contacts; Three-Year, Partially Deferred Suspension Where Misconduct Is Confined to the Courts — Commentary on In re Randazzo (La. 2025)

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Disbarment as the Baseline for False Judicial Attacks and Ex Parte Contacts; Three-Year, Partially Deferred Suspension Where Misconduct Is Confined to the Courts — Commentary on In re Randazzo (La....
Counting Pre‑Cooperation Buyers and Prior Suppliers as “Participants” Under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b): United States v. Monroe (11th Cir. 2025)

Counting Pre‑Cooperation Buyers and Prior Suppliers as “Participants” Under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b): United States v. Monroe (11th Cir. 2025)

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Counting Pre‑Cooperation Buyers and Prior Suppliers as “Participants” Under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b): United States v. Monroe (11th Cir. 2025) Introduction In United States v. Lennard Rashard Monroe, a...
“Subdued” Does Not Mean “Handcuffed”: First Circuit Extends the Clearly Established Prohibition on Prone Compression to the Pre-Cuffing Phase

“Subdued” Does Not Mean “Handcuffed”: First Circuit Extends the Clearly Established Prohibition on Prone Compression to the Pre-Cuffing Phase

Date: Sep 11, 2025
“Subdued” Does Not Mean “Handcuffed”: First Circuit Extends the Clearly Established Prohibition on Prone Compression to the Pre-Cuffing Phase Introduction In Miller v. Roycroft, No. 24-1351 (1st Cir....
Refusal of OSHA Certified Mail Does Not Defeat Service: Alternative Delivery and Judicial Notice of Address Satisfy Due Process

Refusal of OSHA Certified Mail Does Not Defeat Service: Alternative Delivery and Judicial Notice of Address Satisfy Due Process

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Refusal of OSHA Certified Mail Does Not Defeat Service: Alternative Delivery and Judicial Notice of Address Satisfy Due Process Introduction In Lori Chavez-DeRemer v. Elmer Miller d/b/a Miller...
NCMEC Is a Governmental Entity for Fourth Amendment Purposes, But ESP Hash-Matching Alone Does Not Make Providers Government Agents: A Comprehensive Commentary on United States v. Guard (2d Cir. 2025)

NCMEC Is a Governmental Entity for Fourth Amendment Purposes, But ESP Hash-Matching Alone Does Not Make Providers Government Agents: A Comprehensive Commentary on United States v. Guard (2d Cir. 2025)

Date: Sep 11, 2025
NCMEC Is a Governmental Entity for Fourth Amendment Purposes, But ESP Hash-Matching Alone Does Not Make Providers Government Agents Comprehensive Commentary on United States v. Guard, No. 23-6886 (2d...
Accommodation Cannot Compel Illegality: Second Circuit Reaffirms that Title VII Does Not Require Employers to Violate State Vaccination Rules, and Uniform Mandates Do Not Support ADA “Regarded As” Claims

Accommodation Cannot Compel Illegality: Second Circuit Reaffirms that Title VII Does Not Require Employers to Violate State Vaccination Rules, and Uniform Mandates Do Not Support ADA “Regarded As” Claims

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Accommodation Cannot Compel Illegality: Second Circuit Reaffirms that Title VII Does Not Require Employers to Violate State Vaccination Rules, and Uniform Mandates Do Not Support ADA “Regarded As”...
Requesting FMLA Paperwork Is Not Protected Activity: West Virginia Supreme Court clarifies Harless retaliation and reinforces WVHRA prima facie and pretext standards

Requesting FMLA Paperwork Is Not Protected Activity: West Virginia Supreme Court clarifies Harless retaliation and reinforces WVHRA prima facie and pretext standards

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Requesting FMLA Paperwork Is Not Protected Activity: West Virginia Supreme Court clarifies Harless retaliation and reinforces WVHRA prima facie and pretext standards Introduction In Cindy Linger-Long...
Principles, Not Twins: The Third Circuit’s Sensitive-Places Framework After Bruen and Rahimi — Koons v. Attorney General of New Jersey

Principles, Not Twins: The Third Circuit’s Sensitive-Places Framework After Bruen and Rahimi — Koons v. Attorney General of New Jersey

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Principles, Not Twins: The Third Circuit’s Sensitive-Places Framework After Bruen and Rahimi Commentary on Koons v. Attorney General New Jersey (3d Cir. Sept. 10, 2025) Introduction In Koons v....
Addressing the Central Thesis Suffices: Fourth Circuit Reaffirms Minimal Explanation and Harmless Error for Consecutive Revocation Sentences

Addressing the Central Thesis Suffices: Fourth Circuit Reaffirms Minimal Explanation and Harmless Error for Consecutive Revocation Sentences

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Addressing the Central Thesis Suffices: Fourth Circuit Reaffirms Minimal Explanation and Harmless Error for Consecutive Revocation Sentences Introduction This commentary analyzes the Fourth Circuit’s...
Internal Affairs, Not Foreign Receivers, Controls Bankruptcy Authority; Product‑Line Successor Claims Are Property of the Estate — A Comprehensive Commentary on In re Whittaker Clark & Daniels, Inc. (3d Cir. 2025)

Internal Affairs, Not Foreign Receivers, Controls Bankruptcy Authority; Product‑Line Successor Claims Are Property of the Estate — A Comprehensive Commentary on In re Whittaker Clark & Daniels, Inc. (3d Cir. 2025)

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Internal Affairs, Not Foreign Receivers, Controls Bankruptcy Authority; Product‑Line Successor Claims Are Property of the Estate A comprehensive commentary on In re Whittaker Clark & Daniels, Inc.,...
Differential Diagnosis Endorsed for Abusive Head Trauma: Nevada Affirms Physician Causation Testimony Without Biomechanical Expertise and Clarifies Limits on Juror-Impeachment and Prosecutorial Comment

Differential Diagnosis Endorsed for Abusive Head Trauma: Nevada Affirms Physician Causation Testimony Without Biomechanical Expertise and Clarifies Limits on Juror-Impeachment and Prosecutorial Comment

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Differential Diagnosis Endorsed for Abusive Head Trauma: Nevada Affirms Physician Causation Testimony Without Biomechanical Expertise and Clarifies Limits on Juror-Impeachment and Prosecutorial...
Deemed‑Admitted Noncooperation and Failure to Return Client File Warrant a One‑Year‑and‑One‑Day Suspension: In re Tristan Patrick Gilley

Deemed‑Admitted Noncooperation and Failure to Return Client File Warrant a One‑Year‑and‑One‑Day Suspension: In re Tristan Patrick Gilley

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Deemed‑Admitted Noncooperation and Failure to Return Client File Warrant a One‑Year‑and‑One‑Day Suspension: In re Tristan Patrick Gilley Introduction In In re: Tristan Patrick Gilley, No. 2025-B-0713...
Spears v. Frame: Habeas Orders Must Contain Petitioner-Specific Findings; Incorporating a Co‑Defendant’s Findings Is Insufficient for Meaningful Appellate Review

Spears v. Frame: Habeas Orders Must Contain Petitioner-Specific Findings; Incorporating a Co‑Defendant’s Findings Is Insufficient for Meaningful Appellate Review

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Spears v. Frame: Habeas Orders Must Contain Petitioner-Specific Findings; Incorporating a Co‑Defendant’s Findings Is Insufficient for Meaningful Appellate Review Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of...
Rule 35(b) in West Virginia: No Entitlement to Appointed Experts and Concise Orders Can Suffice — State v. Jeffery (W. Va. Sept. 10, 2025)

Rule 35(b) in West Virginia: No Entitlement to Appointed Experts and Concise Orders Can Suffice — State v. Jeffery (W. Va. Sept. 10, 2025)

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Rule 35(b) in West Virginia: No Entitlement to Appointed Experts and Concise Orders Can Suffice — State v. Jeffery Introduction In State of West Virginia v. Joey Keith Jeffery, No. 23-538 (Kanawha...
Eleventh Circuit Clarifies PLRA “Three-Strikes”: Jurisdictional Dismissals and Prior § 1915(g) Dismissals Do Not Count Absent an Express Failure-to-State-a-Claim Basis

Eleventh Circuit Clarifies PLRA “Three-Strikes”: Jurisdictional Dismissals and Prior § 1915(g) Dismissals Do Not Count Absent an Express Failure-to-State-a-Claim Basis

Date: Sep 11, 2025
Eleventh Circuit Clarifies PLRA “Three-Strikes”: Jurisdictional Dismissals and Prior § 1915(g) Dismissals Do Not Count Absent an Express Failure-to-State-a-Claim Basis Case: George Walter Brewster,...
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