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

restricting-general-jurisdiction:-second-circuit&amp Case Commentaries

Mandatory Forfeiture of Unlicensed Food-Vending Vehicles Triggers Excessive Fines Scrutiny: City of New York v. Jones (2025)

Mandatory Forfeiture of Unlicensed Food-Vending Vehicles Triggers Excessive Fines Scrutiny: City of New York v. Jones (2025)

Date: Sep 9, 2025
Mandatory Forfeiture of Unlicensed Food-Vending Vehicles Triggers Excessive Fines Scrutiny: City of New York v. Jones (2025) Introduction City of New York v. Jones (2025 NY Slip Op 04842) is a...
Defective Dolly + Heavy Load = Scaffold Law Liability: Hernandez v. Port Authority (1st Dept 2025) solidifies §240(1) for low-height, high-weight tip-overs and clarifies “arising out of” indemnity and borrowed-equipment exposure

Defective Dolly + Heavy Load = Scaffold Law Liability: Hernandez v. Port Authority (1st Dept 2025) solidifies §240(1) for low-height, high-weight tip-overs and clarifies “arising out of” indemnity and borrowed-equipment exposure

Date: Sep 9, 2025
Defective Dolly + Heavy Load = Scaffold Law Liability Hernandez v. Port Authority of N.Y. & N.J. (2025 NY Slip Op 04843) Introduction In Hernandez v. Port Authority of N.Y. & N.J., the Appellate...
Usury as Malpractice: Drafting Facially Usurious Forbearance Terms Is Negligence; Estoppel Does Not Cure, but Mitigation Fees Are Recoverable

Usury as Malpractice: Drafting Facially Usurious Forbearance Terms Is Negligence; Estoppel Does Not Cure, but Mitigation Fees Are Recoverable

Date: Sep 9, 2025
Usury as Malpractice: Drafting Facially Usurious Forbearance Terms Is Negligence; Estoppel Does Not Cure, but Mitigation Fees Are Recoverable Case: Salamone v. Deily & Glastetter, LLP, 2025 NY Slip...
“Spam Folder” Is Not a Defense: Email Notice, EUO Admissions, and Noncompliance as Independent Bases for Interim Suspension under 22 NYCRR § 1240.9 — Matter of Wells (2025)

“Spam Folder” Is Not a Defense: Email Notice, EUO Admissions, and Noncompliance as Independent Bases for Interim Suspension under 22 NYCRR § 1240.9 — Matter of Wells (2025)

Date: Sep 9, 2025
“Spam Folder” Is Not a Defense: Email Notice, EUO Admissions, and Noncompliance as Independent Bases for Interim Suspension under 22 NYCRR § 1240.9 — Matter of Wells (2025) Introduction In Matter of...
“Applying Means Applying”: Washington Supreme Court Holds No “Bona Fide” Intent Required to Be a “Job Applicant” Under the EPOA’s Pay-Transparency Remedies

“Applying Means Applying”: Washington Supreme Court Holds No “Bona Fide” Intent Required to Be a “Job Applicant” Under the EPOA’s Pay-Transparency Remedies

Date: Sep 9, 2025
“Applying Means Applying”: Washington Supreme Court Holds No “Bona Fide” Intent Required to Be a “Job Applicant” Under the EPOA’s Pay-Transparency Remedies Introduction In Branson v. Washington Fine...
Morris v. State (Wyo. 2025): Polygraph Results Offered to Bolster Credibility Fail Rule 702 and Cannot Establish Strickland Prejudice

Morris v. State (Wyo. 2025): Polygraph Results Offered to Bolster Credibility Fail Rule 702 and Cannot Establish Strickland Prejudice

Date: Sep 9, 2025
Polygraph Results Offered to Bolster Credibility Fail Rule 702 and Cannot Establish Strickland Prejudice Commentary on Randall Bruce Morris v. The State of Wyoming (2025 WY 98) Introduction In 2025...
The Jury Is the Lie Detector: Wyoming Supreme Court Rejects Polygraph-Based Ineffective Assistance Claim Under Rule 702 and Daubert

The Jury Is the Lie Detector: Wyoming Supreme Court Rejects Polygraph-Based Ineffective Assistance Claim Under Rule 702 and Daubert

Date: Sep 9, 2025
The Jury Is the Lie Detector: Wyoming Supreme Court Rejects Polygraph-Based Ineffective Assistance Claim Under Rule 702 and Daubert Introduction In Randall Bruce Morris v. The State of Wyoming (2025...
Finality of Partial Acquittals and Limits on Mistrials After Jury Polling: The South Carolina Supreme Court’s Double-Jeopardy Blueprint in State v. Erb (2025)

Finality of Partial Acquittals and Limits on Mistrials After Jury Polling: The South Carolina Supreme Court’s Double-Jeopardy Blueprint in State v. Erb (2025)

Date: Sep 9, 2025
Finality of Partial Acquittals and Limits on Mistrials After Jury Polling: The South Carolina Supreme Court’s Double-Jeopardy Blueprint in State v. Erb (2025) Introduction In State v. John Joseph...
Mere Noncompliance with a Custody Order Is Not a Material Change Absent Demonstrable Impact on the Child’s Welfare: Cornell v. Mecartney (2025 WY 97)

Mere Noncompliance with a Custody Order Is Not a Material Change Absent Demonstrable Impact on the Child’s Welfare: Cornell v. Mecartney (2025 WY 97)

Date: Sep 9, 2025
Mere Noncompliance with a Custody Order Is Not a Material Change Absent Demonstrable Impact on the Child’s Welfare: Cornell v. Mecartney (2025 WY 97) Introduction In Kelly Cornell f/k/a Kelly Cornell...
Ancillary Evidence Does Not Reset the Rule 3.851 Clock: Florida Supreme Court Clarifies “Predicate Facts,” Due Diligence, and Third‑Party Confession Standards in Suggs v. State

Ancillary Evidence Does Not Reset the Rule 3.851 Clock: Florida Supreme Court Clarifies “Predicate Facts,” Due Diligence, and Third‑Party Confession Standards in Suggs v. State

Date: Sep 9, 2025
Ancillary Evidence Does Not Reset the Rule 3.851 Clock: Florida Supreme Court Clarifies “Predicate Facts,” Due Diligence, and Third‑Party Confession Standards in Suggs v. State Introduction This...
No Presumption from Criminal Stand‑Your‑Ground Immunity: Alabama Supreme Court Reaffirms Rule 56 Burdens in Subsequent Civil Cases

No Presumption from Criminal Stand‑Your‑Ground Immunity: Alabama Supreme Court Reaffirms Rule 56 Burdens in Subsequent Civil Cases

Date: Sep 9, 2025
No Presumption from Criminal Stand‑Your‑Ground Immunity: Alabama Supreme Court Reaffirms Rule 56 Burdens in Subsequent Civil Cases Introduction In Arethea Hurbert, an incompetent person, by and...
Forecasting Complications Is Expert Testimony: Mississippi Supreme Court Clarifies the Lay–Expert Boundary for Treating Physicians

Forecasting Complications Is Expert Testimony: Mississippi Supreme Court Clarifies the Lay–Expert Boundary for Treating Physicians

Date: Sep 9, 2025
Forecasting Complications Is Expert Testimony: Mississippi Supreme Court Clarifies the Lay–Expert Boundary for Treating Physicians Introduction In Sapireya (a/k/a Saperiya) Smith v. State of...
Clarifying the MPLA’s Reach: Mississippi Supreme Court Limits Products Liability Act to Defective-Product Claims and Preserves Contract and Commercial Implied-Warranty Actions

Clarifying the MPLA’s Reach: Mississippi Supreme Court Limits Products Liability Act to Defective-Product Claims and Preserves Contract and Commercial Implied-Warranty Actions

Date: Sep 9, 2025
Clarifying the MPLA’s Reach: Mississippi Supreme Court Limits Products Liability Act to Defective-Product Claims and Preserves Contract and Commercial Implied-Warranty Actions Introduction In...
Third Circuit Clarifies Pickering: Speculation and Routine Complaints Are Insufficient “Disruption” to Punish Off‑Campus Faculty Speech

Third Circuit Clarifies Pickering: Speculation and Routine Complaints Are Insufficient “Disruption” to Punish Off‑Campus Faculty Speech

Date: Sep 9, 2025
Third Circuit Clarifies Pickering: Speculation and Routine Complaints Are Insufficient “Disruption” to Punish Off‑Campus Faculty Speech Introduction This precedential decision from the U.S. Court of...
Punitive Damages in New York Defamation Need Not Be “Sole-Motive” Malice and Are Proven by a Preponderance: The Second Circuit’s Clarification in Carroll v. Trump

Punitive Damages in New York Defamation Need Not Be “Sole-Motive” Malice and Are Proven by a Preponderance: The Second Circuit’s Clarification in Carroll v. Trump

Date: Sep 9, 2025
Punitive Damages in New York Defamation Need Not Be “Sole-Motive” Malice and Are Proven by a Preponderance: The Second Circuit’s Clarification in Carroll v. Trump Introduction In Carroll v. Trump,...
Temporal Proximity Must Be Very Close: One-Year Gap and Isolated Stray Remarks Are Insufficient to Plausibly Plead Discrimination or Retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL

Temporal Proximity Must Be Very Close: One-Year Gap and Isolated Stray Remarks Are Insufficient to Plausibly Plead Discrimination or Retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL

Date: Sep 9, 2025
Temporal Proximity Must Be Very Close: One-Year Gap and Isolated Stray Remarks Are Insufficient to Plausibly Plead Discrimination or Retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL Introduction This...
Advancing-the-Trust Test for Attorneys’ Fees: Hawaiʻi Supreme Court Requires Merits Determination and “Assistance to the Court” Showing Before Shifting Fees in Contested Trust Matters

Advancing-the-Trust Test for Attorneys’ Fees: Hawaiʻi Supreme Court Requires Merits Determination and “Assistance to the Court” Showing Before Shifting Fees in Contested Trust Matters

Date: Sep 9, 2025
Advancing-the-Trust Test for Attorneys’ Fees: Hawaiʻi Supreme Court Requires Merits Determination and “Assistance to the Court” Showing Before Shifting Fees in Contested Trust Matters Case: In re:...
States Cannot Use § 3502(d) RIF Notice to Police Federal Personnel Management: Fourth Circuit Tightens Standing and Redressability in State of Maryland v. USDA

States Cannot Use § 3502(d) RIF Notice to Police Federal Personnel Management: Fourth Circuit Tightens Standing and Redressability in State of Maryland v. USDA

Date: Sep 9, 2025
States Cannot Use § 3502(d) RIF Notice to Police Federal Personnel Management: Fourth Circuit Tightens Standing and Redressability in State of Maryland v. USDA Introduction In a published decision,...
Banking Enforcement as a Public Right: Fifth Circuit Holds No Seventh Amendment Jury in § 1818 Proceedings and Ties Limitations Accrual to Agency Determination (Ortega v. OCC)

Banking Enforcement as a Public Right: Fifth Circuit Holds No Seventh Amendment Jury in § 1818 Proceedings and Ties Limitations Accrual to Agency Determination (Ortega v. OCC)

Date: Sep 9, 2025
Banking Enforcement as a Public Right: Fifth Circuit Holds No Seventh Amendment Jury in § 1818 Proceedings and Ties Limitations Accrual to Agency Determination Ortega v. Office of the Comptroller of...
Per-Claimant Occurrence Controls Known-Loss Exclusion: First Circuit Requires Defense of Class Action Where Post-Inception Damages Are Separate Occurrences Under Massachusetts Law

Per-Claimant Occurrence Controls Known-Loss Exclusion: First Circuit Requires Defense of Class Action Where Post-Inception Damages Are Separate Occurrences Under Massachusetts Law

Date: Sep 9, 2025
Per-Claimant Occurrence Controls Known-Loss Exclusion: First Circuit Requires Defense of Class Action Where Post-Inception Damages Are Separate Occurrences Under Massachusetts Law Introduction In...
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