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

retrospective-application-of-prehire-labor-agreements:-laborers& Case Commentaries

Fifth Circuit Clarifies Equitable Estoppel & Assignment Ambiguities in ERISA Provider Claims – A Commentary on Angelina Emergency Medicine Associates PA v. Blue Cross

Fifth Circuit Clarifies Equitable Estoppel & Assignment Ambiguities in ERISA Provider Claims – A Commentary on Angelina Emergency Medicine Associates PA v. Blue Cross

Date: Aug 13, 2025
Fifth Circuit Clarifies Equitable Estoppel & Assignment Ambiguities in ERISA Provider Claims: Commentary on Angelina Emergency Medicine Associates PA v. Blue Cross (5th Cir. 2025) 1. Introduction The...
Illegality at First Sip: Fifth Circuit Confirms That “Showcase” Supply-Retail Agreements Breaching TABC §102.16 Are Void and Unenforceable

Illegality at First Sip: Fifth Circuit Confirms That “Showcase” Supply-Retail Agreements Breaching TABC §102.16 Are Void and Unenforceable

Date: Aug 13, 2025
Illegality at First Sip: Fifth Circuit Confirms That “Showcase” Supply-Retail Agreements Breaching TABC §102.16 Are Void and Unenforceable 1. Introduction In ROKiT Drinks, L.L.C. v. Landry’s Inc....
United States v. Baxter: Explicit Oral Pronouncement Required for Search-Conditions of Supervised Release

United States v. Baxter: Explicit Oral Pronouncement Required for Search-Conditions of Supervised Release

Date: Aug 13, 2025
United States v. Baxter: Fifth Circuit Re-Affirms That “Submission-to-Search” Conditions on Supervised Release Must Be Orally Pronounced Introduction United States v. Baxter, No. 24-50051 (5th Cir....
“Reasonably-Responsive Excerpts” & Minimal Authentication – A Commentary on United States v. Cash (5th Cir. 2025)

“Reasonably-Responsive Excerpts” & Minimal Authentication – A Commentary on United States v. Cash (5th Cir. 2025)

Date: Aug 13, 2025
“Reasonably-Responsive Excerpts” & Minimal Authentication – A Detailed Commentary on United States v. Cash (5th Cir. 2025) I. Introduction Case: United States v. Cash, No. 24-10243, Court of Appeals...
“No Need to Know the Drug & No Ambiguous Pro-Se Requests:” 
            The Fifth Circuit’s Dual Clarifications in United States v. Serrano Galaviz

“No Need to Know the Drug & No Ambiguous Pro-Se Requests:” The Fifth Circuit’s Dual Clarifications in United States v. Serrano Galaviz

Date: Aug 13, 2025
“No Need to Know the Drug & No Ambiguous Pro-Se Requests:” The Fifth Circuit’s Dual Clarifications in United States v. Serrano Galaviz 1. Introduction Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth...
Accord & Satisfaction Is an Affirmative Defense, Not a Stand-Alone Claim: A Comprehensive Commentary on Wood v. North Mississippi Health Services (5th Cir. 2025)

Accord & Satisfaction Is an Affirmative Defense, Not a Stand-Alone Claim: A Comprehensive Commentary on Wood v. North Mississippi Health Services (5th Cir. 2025)

Date: Aug 13, 2025
Accord & Satisfaction Is an Affirmative Defense, Not a Stand-Alone Claim: Commentary on Wood v. North Mississippi Health Services, No. 24-60546 (5th Cir. Aug. 8, 2025) 1. Introduction In Wood v....
“Intent, Not Negligence”: The Sixth Circuit Re-defines Employer Liability for Customer Harassment in Bivens v. Zep, Inc.

“Intent, Not Negligence”: The Sixth Circuit Re-defines Employer Liability for Customer Harassment in Bivens v. Zep, Inc.

Date: Aug 13, 2025
“Intent, Not Negligence”: The Sixth Circuit Re-defines Employer Liability for Customer Harassment in Bivens v. Zep, Inc. 1. Introduction In Dorothy Bivens v. Zep, Inc., the United States Court of...
Bledsoe v. FCA US, LLC – Sixth Circuit Refines the Two-Step Test for Clean Air Act Conflict-Preemption and Confirms a Safe-Harbor for Fuel-Economy Misrepresentation Claims

Bledsoe v. FCA US, LLC – Sixth Circuit Refines the Two-Step Test for Clean Air Act Conflict-Preemption and Confirms a Safe-Harbor for Fuel-Economy Misrepresentation Claims

Date: Aug 13, 2025
Bledsoe v. FCA US, LLC – Sixth Circuit Refines the Two-Step Test for Clean Air Act Conflict-Preemption and Confirms a Safe-Harbor for Fuel-Economy Misrepresentation Claims Introduction In James...
United States v. Singh: Sixth Circuit Mandates a “Bryan-Level” Willfulness Instruction and Reinforces Evidentiary Guardrails in Healthcare-Fraud Prosecutions

United States v. Singh: Sixth Circuit Mandates a “Bryan-Level” Willfulness Instruction and Reinforces Evidentiary Guardrails in Healthcare-Fraud Prosecutions

Date: Aug 13, 2025
United States v. Singh: Sixth Circuit Mandates a “Bryan-Level” Willfulness Instruction and Reinforces Evidentiary Guardrails in Healthcare-Fraud Prosecutions Introduction In United States v. Ankita...
United States v. Hinds: Sixth Circuit Clarifies Harmless-Error Review after Erlinger and Re-Affirms State Enforcement of Federal Marijuana Law

United States v. Hinds: Sixth Circuit Clarifies Harmless-Error Review after Erlinger and Re-Affirms State Enforcement of Federal Marijuana Law

Date: Aug 13, 2025
United States v. Hinds: Sixth Circuit Clarifies Harmless-Error Review after Erlinger and Re-Affirms State Enforcement of Federal Marijuana Law Introduction In United States v. Michael Hinds, the...
United States v. Hinds: Sixth Circuit Clarifies Harmless-Error Review After Erlinger for ACCA “Different-Occasions” Element

United States v. Hinds: Sixth Circuit Clarifies Harmless-Error Review After Erlinger for ACCA “Different-Occasions” Element

Date: Aug 13, 2025
United States v. Hinds: Sixth Circuit Clarifies Harmless-Error Review After Erlinger for ACCA “Different-Occasions” Element Introduction In United States v. Michael Hinds, the Court of Appeals for...
United States v. VanOchten – The Sixth Circuit Confirms Conditional Disarmament of “Dangerous” Drug-Users Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)

United States v. VanOchten – The Sixth Circuit Confirms Conditional Disarmament of “Dangerous” Drug-Users Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)

Date: Aug 13, 2025
United States v. VanOchten – The Sixth Circuit Confirms Conditional Disarmament of “Dangerous” Drug-Users Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) 1. Introduction In United States v. Terrence Wayne VanOchten, No....
Mandatory FMLA Medical Certification as an ADA “Inquiry” – A Comprehensive Commentary on Mullin v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Mandatory FMLA Medical Certification as an ADA “Inquiry” – A Comprehensive Commentary on Mullin v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

Date: Aug 13, 2025
Mandatory FMLA Medical Certification as an ADA “Inquiry” – A Comprehensive Commentary on Mullin v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 1. Introduction Case: Aileen Mullin v. Secretary,...
Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Non-Jurisdictional Nature of Interstate-Commerce Element in Child-Sex-Trafficking Prosecutions

Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Non-Jurisdictional Nature of Interstate-Commerce Element in Child-Sex-Trafficking Prosecutions

Date: Aug 13, 2025
Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Non-Jurisdictional Nature of Interstate-Commerce Element in Child-Sex-Trafficking Prosecutions Introduction In United States v. Ralph Kevin Tovar, No. 23-10755 (11th Cir....
Daniels v. Hughes: When Post-Settlement Fee Modifications Trump Original Consent Decrees and Enforcement Jurisdiction Diverges from Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Daniels v. Hughes: When Post-Settlement Fee Modifications Trump Original Consent Decrees and Enforcement Jurisdiction Diverges from Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

Date: Aug 13, 2025
Daniels v. Hughes: When Post-Settlement Fee Modifications Trump Original Consent Decrees and Enforcement Jurisdiction Diverges from Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Introduction For nearly two decades,...

        Seventh Circuit Clarifies (1) the Binding Nature of Post-Settlement Fee Modifications 
        and (2) the Distinction Between Enforcement Jurisdiction and Subject-Matter 
        Jurisdiction After a Consent Decree Expires

Seventh Circuit Clarifies (1) the Binding Nature of Post-Settlement Fee Modifications and (2) the Distinction Between Enforcement Jurisdiction and Subject-Matter Jurisdiction After a Consent Decree Expires

Date: Aug 13, 2025
Seventh Circuit Clarifies (1) the Binding Nature of Post-Settlement Fee Modifications and (2) the Distinction Between Enforcement Jurisdiction and Subject-Matter Jurisdiction After a Consent Decree...
“Silence Speaks”: Fourth Circuit Confirms that Omitted Words in Parallel Insurance Exclusions Preserve Coverage for Negligent Entrustment & Interest Beyond Policy Limits

“Silence Speaks”: Fourth Circuit Confirms that Omitted Words in Parallel Insurance Exclusions Preserve Coverage for Negligent Entrustment & Interest Beyond Policy Limits

Date: Aug 13, 2025
“Silence Speaks”: Fourth Circuit Confirms that Omitted Words in Parallel Insurance Exclusions Preserve Coverage for Negligent Entrustment & Interest Beyond Policy Limits Introduction The unpublished...
United States v. Stull: Fourth Circuit Clarifies the Defendant’s Burden of Showing Prejudice for Rule 11 Omissions on Plain-Error Review

United States v. Stull: Fourth Circuit Clarifies the Defendant’s Burden of Showing Prejudice for Rule 11 Omissions on Plain-Error Review

Date: Aug 13, 2025
United States v. Stull: Fourth Circuit Clarifies the Defendant’s Burden of Showing Prejudice for Rule 11 Omissions on Plain-Error Review Introduction United States v. Jerry Stull, No. 24-4340 (4th...
“Strict Enforcement of Appellate Diligence” – Commentary on Gilberti v. Buffet (10th Cir. 2025)

“Strict Enforcement of Appellate Diligence” – Commentary on Gilberti v. Buffet (10th Cir. 2025)

Date: Aug 13, 2025
“Strict Enforcement of Appellate Diligence” – A Commentary on Gilberti v. Buffet, 90 F.4th ___ (10th Cir. 2025) 1. Introduction In Gilberti v. Buffet, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth...
United States v. Guzman: No Fourth-Amendment Standing for Occupants of Condemned or “Substandard” Property

United States v. Guzman: No Fourth-Amendment Standing for Occupants of Condemned or “Substandard” Property

Date: Aug 13, 2025
United States v. Guzman: No Fourth-Amendment Standing for Occupants of Condemned or “Substandard” Property 1. Introduction In United States v. Guzman, No. 24-2122 (10th Cir. Aug. 8, 2025), the Tenth...
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