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

The “Lowe Rule”: Impeachment-Only Hearsay Cannot Sustain an ELCRA Age-Discrimination Verdict

The “Lowe Rule”: Impeachment-Only Hearsay Cannot Sustain an ELCRA Age-Discrimination Verdict

Date: Aug 7, 2025
The “Lowe Rule”: Impeachment-Only Hearsay Cannot Sustain an ELCRA Age-Discrimination Verdict Introduction Case: Kenneth James Lowe v. Walbro, LLC – United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth...
Sixth Circuit Clarifies Prosecutorial Absolute Immunity for Post-Charge Witness Preparation and Affirms Broad Release under Michigan’s WICA

Sixth Circuit Clarifies Prosecutorial Absolute Immunity for Post-Charge Witness Preparation and Affirms Broad Release under Michigan’s WICA

Date: Aug 7, 2025
Sixth Circuit Clarifies Prosecutorial Absolute Immunity for Post-Charge Witness Preparation and Affirms Broad Release under Michigan’s WICA Introduction In Larry Smith v. Wayne County, Michigan, No....
“One Ignored Complaint Is Enough” – The Sixth Circuit’s Dual Ruling on Excessive-Force Handcuffing and Michigan Gross-Negligence Immunity

“One Ignored Complaint Is Enough” – The Sixth Circuit’s Dual Ruling on Excessive-Force Handcuffing and Michigan Gross-Negligence Immunity

Date: Aug 7, 2025
“One Ignored Complaint Is Enough” – The Sixth Circuit’s Dual Ruling on Excessive-Force Handcuffing and Michigan Gross-Negligence Immunity Introduction Sherrell King v. City of Lincoln Park, Mich.,...
“No Accident in Self-Defense”: Sixth Circuit Clarifies that Intentional Self-Defense Shootings Are Not “Occurrences” Under Michigan Homeowner Policies

“No Accident in Self-Defense”: Sixth Circuit Clarifies that Intentional Self-Defense Shootings Are Not “Occurrences” Under Michigan Homeowner Policies

Date: Aug 7, 2025
“No Accident in Self-Defense”: Sixth Circuit Clarifies that Intentional Self-Defense Shootings Are Not “Occurrences” Under Michigan Homeowner Policies 1. Introduction State Farm Fire & Casualty Co....
Kirby v. Perkins: Delaware Supreme Court Clarifies Best-Interests Analysis and Limits Reliance on Third-Party Funding in School-Choice Custody Disputes

Kirby v. Perkins: Delaware Supreme Court Clarifies Best-Interests Analysis and Limits Reliance on Third-Party Funding in School-Choice Custody Disputes

Date: Aug 7, 2025
Kirby v. Perkins: Delaware Supreme Court Clarifies Best-Interests Analysis and Limits Reliance on Third-Party Funding in School-Choice Custody Disputes 1. Introduction Kirby v. Perkins, Supreme Court...
Express Severance “Cancellation of All Prior Agreements” Clauses Extinguish Trailing Commission Rights and Bar Later Contract Claims: Commentary on Wagschal v. Ecconergy (2025 NY Slip Op 04595)

Express Severance “Cancellation of All Prior Agreements” Clauses Extinguish Trailing Commission Rights and Bar Later Contract Claims: Commentary on Wagschal v. Ecconergy (2025 NY Slip Op 04595)

Date: Aug 7, 2025
Express Severance “Cancellation of All Prior Agreements” Clauses Extinguish Trailing Commission Rights and Bar Later Contract Claims: Commentary on Wagschal v. Ecconergy (2025 NY Slip Op 04595)...
People v. Lloyd F.: Second Department sets a stringent “extraordinary circumstances” bar under CPL 722.23(1)(d) for retaining adolescent-offender cases in the Youth Part

People v. Lloyd F.: Second Department sets a stringent “extraordinary circumstances” bar under CPL 722.23(1)(d) for retaining adolescent-offender cases in the Youth Part

Date: Aug 7, 2025
People v. Lloyd F.: Second Department sets a stringent “extraordinary circumstances” bar under CPL 722.23(1)(d) for retaining adolescent-offender cases in the Youth Part Introduction In People v....
Moving Scaffolds Under Ceiling Obstacles: Unsecured Materials “Require Securing” — Second Department Revives Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) Claims and Negligence Against Subcontractor

Moving Scaffolds Under Ceiling Obstacles: Unsecured Materials “Require Securing” — Second Department Revives Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) Claims and Negligence Against Subcontractor

Date: Aug 7, 2025
Moving Scaffolds Under Ceiling Obstacles: Unsecured Materials “Require Securing” — Second Department Revives Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) Claims and Negligence Against Subcontractor Introduction...
No Personal Jurisdiction Needed to Domesticate Sister‑State Judgments in New York: Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Simms

No Personal Jurisdiction Needed to Domesticate Sister‑State Judgments in New York: Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Simms

Date: Aug 7, 2025
No Personal Jurisdiction Needed to Domesticate Sister‑State Judgments in New York Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. Simms (2025 NY Slip Op 04541), Appellate Division, Second Department Introduction...
COVID-19 Tolling Applies to the CPLR 205(a)/205-a Six-Month Savings Period in Foreclosure Actions; Dismissal for RPAPL 1306 Noncompliance Is Not “On the Merits”

COVID-19 Tolling Applies to the CPLR 205(a)/205-a Six-Month Savings Period in Foreclosure Actions; Dismissal for RPAPL 1306 Noncompliance Is Not “On the Merits”

Date: Aug 7, 2025
COVID-19 Tolling Applies to the CPLR 205(a)/205-a Six-Month Savings Period in Foreclosure Actions; Dismissal for RPAPL 1306 Noncompliance Is Not “On the Merits” Introduction This commentary examines...
Contractual Waiver of Resignation Challenges Does Not Extinguish Right to Seek Religious Accommodation Under DOE Vaccine Mandate

Contractual Waiver of Resignation Challenges Does Not Extinguish Right to Seek Religious Accommodation Under DOE Vaccine Mandate

Date: Aug 7, 2025
Contractual Waiver of Resignation Challenges Does Not Extinguish Right to Seek Religious Accommodation Under DOE Vaccine Mandate Case: Matter of LaBarbera v. New York City Department of Education,...
Imputing Counsel’s Repeated Neglect to the Client: Second Department Narrows “Interest‑of‑Justice” Vacatur and Enforces the One‑Year CPLR 5015(a)(1) Deadline

Imputing Counsel’s Repeated Neglect to the Client: Second Department Narrows “Interest‑of‑Justice” Vacatur and Enforces the One‑Year CPLR 5015(a)(1) Deadline

Date: Aug 7, 2025
Imputing Counsel’s Repeated Neglect to the Client: Second Department Narrows “Interest‑of‑Justice” Vacatur and Enforces the One‑Year CPLR 5015(a)(1) Deadline Introduction In Zlobec v. Bank of N.Y....
Closed A‑Frame Ladder Use, Speculative Lighting Claims, and Recurring Water: The Second Department’s Clarification of §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 in Araujo v. Monadnock Construction, Inc.

Closed A‑Frame Ladder Use, Speculative Lighting Claims, and Recurring Water: The Second Department’s Clarification of §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 in Araujo v. Monadnock Construction, Inc.

Date: Aug 7, 2025
Closed A‑Frame Ladder Use, Speculative Lighting Claims, and Recurring Water: The Second Department’s Clarification of §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 in Araujo v. Monadnock Construction, Inc. Introduction...
Coverage Denial as a Single Breach: Second Department Fixes Accrual at Disclaimer Date and Rejects Continuing‑Wrong Tolling for Excess Workers’ Compensation Policies

Coverage Denial as a Single Breach: Second Department Fixes Accrual at Disclaimer Date and Rejects Continuing‑Wrong Tolling for Excess Workers’ Compensation Policies

Date: Aug 7, 2025
Coverage Denial as a Single Breach: Second Department Fixes Accrual at Disclaimer Date and Rejects Continuing‑Wrong Tolling for Excess Workers’ Compensation Policies Introduction In New York Bus...
The Heckscher Specificity Rule: Under Court of Claims Act §11(b), an Insufficient “Place” Allegation Is a Jurisdictional Defect That Cannot Be Cured by Amendment, Cannot Be Treated as a Claim, and Does Not Extend Time to File

The Heckscher Specificity Rule: Under Court of Claims Act §11(b), an Insufficient “Place” Allegation Is a Jurisdictional Defect That Cannot Be Cured by Amendment, Cannot Be Treated as a Claim, and Does Not Extend Time to File

Date: Aug 7, 2025
The Heckscher Specificity Rule: Under Court of Claims Act §11(b), an Insufficient “Place” Allegation Is a Jurisdictional Defect That Cannot Be Cured by Amendment, Cannot Be Treated as a Claim, and...
“Foreseeability over Self-Defense” – Sixth Circuit Clarifies the Threshold for an “Occurrence” under Michigan Homeowner Policies

“Foreseeability over Self-Defense” – Sixth Circuit Clarifies the Threshold for an “Occurrence” under Michigan Homeowner Policies

Date: Aug 6, 2025
“Foreseeability over Self-Defense” – Sixth Circuit Clarifies the Threshold for an “Occurrence” under Michigan Homeowner Policies Introduction State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Daniele Giannone, Nos....
United States v. Autry: Strengthening Judicial Discretion to Depart Upward for Category VI Offenders under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3

United States v. Autry: Strengthening Judicial Discretion to Depart Upward for Category VI Offenders under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3

Date: Aug 6, 2025
United States v. Autry: Strengthening Judicial Discretion to Depart Upward for Category VI Offenders under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3 1. Introduction The Sixth Circuit’s unpublished decision in United States...
United States v. Moore: The Sixth Circuit’s Blueprint on Judicial Neutrality, Digital-Evidence Authentication, and Expert Qualifications

United States v. Moore: The Sixth Circuit’s Blueprint on Judicial Neutrality, Digital-Evidence Authentication, and Expert Qualifications

Date: Aug 6, 2025
United States v. Moore: The Sixth Circuit’s Blueprint on Judicial Neutrality, Digital-Evidence Authentication, and Expert Qualifications 1. Introduction In United States v. Marchello Moore (6th Cir.,...
United States v. Pancholi: Sixth Circuit Declares Bad-Faith Is NOT Required to Exclude Surprise Defense Witnesses

United States v. Pancholi: Sixth Circuit Declares Bad-Faith Is NOT Required to Exclude Surprise Defense Witnesses

Date: Aug 6, 2025
United States v. Pancholi: Sixth Circuit Declares Bad-Faith Is NOT Required to Exclude Surprise Defense Witnesses Introduction In United States v. Yogesh K. Pancholi, No. 24-1127 (Aug. 5, 2025), the...
Tenth Circuit Clarifies Relation-Back, Joinder, and Continuing-Violation Limits in Prisoner § 1983 Litigation – The “Amaro Rule”

Tenth Circuit Clarifies Relation-Back, Joinder, and Continuing-Violation Limits in Prisoner § 1983 Litigation – The “Amaro Rule”

Date: Aug 6, 2025
Tenth Circuit Clarifies Relation-Back, Joinder, and Continuing-Violation Limits in Prisoner § 1983 Litigation – The “Amaro Rule” Introduction Amaro v. New Mexico Corrections Department is a...
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