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

state Case Commentaries

“From Wellness-Check to Exigency” – Rhode Island Affirms a Broad, Totality-Driven Emergency-Aid Exception in State v. Nathan Cooper (2025)

“From Wellness-Check to Exigency” – Rhode Island Affirms a Broad, Totality-Driven Emergency-Aid Exception in State v. Nathan Cooper (2025)

Date: Aug 25, 2025
“From Wellness-Check to Exigency” – Rhode Island Affirms a Broad, Totality-Driven Emergency-Aid Exception in State v. Nathan Cooper (2025) Introduction In State v. Nathan Cooper, the Rhode Island...
Mandamus, Faretta, and Jurisdiction:  Denial of the Right to Self-Representation is a Non-Jurisdictional Error – State ex rel. Johnson v. McNamara (2025-Ohio-2891)

Mandamus, Faretta, and Jurisdiction: Denial of the Right to Self-Representation is a Non-Jurisdictional Error – State ex rel. Johnson v. McNamara (2025-Ohio-2891)

Date: Aug 25, 2025
Mandamus, Faretta, and Jurisdiction: Denial of the Right to Self-Representation is a Non-Jurisdictional Error – State ex rel. Johnson v. McNamara (2025-Ohio-2891) Introduction State ex rel. Johnson...
“Stated Prison Term” Redefined: Ohio Supreme Court Bars Judicial Release for Pre-S.B. 2 Indefinite Sentences

“Stated Prison Term” Redefined: Ohio Supreme Court Bars Judicial Release for Pre-S.B. 2 Indefinite Sentences

Date: Aug 25, 2025
“Stated Prison Term” Redefined: Ohio Supreme Court Bars Judicial Release for Pre-S.B. 2 Indefinite Sentences 1. Introduction State v. Staffrey, 2025-Ohio-2889, presented the Supreme Court of Ohio...

        “No Discharge Without Restitution” – The Supreme Court of Ohio Clarifies
        that Restitution Remains a Criminal Sanction for Record-Sealing Purposes
        (State v. T.W.C., 2025-Ohio-2890)

“No Discharge Without Restitution” – The Supreme Court of Ohio Clarifies that Restitution Remains a Criminal Sanction for Record-Sealing Purposes (State v. T.W.C., 2025-Ohio-2890)

Date: Aug 25, 2025
“No Discharge Without Restitution” – The Supreme Court of Ohio Clarifies that Restitution Remains a Criminal Sanction for Record-Sealing Purposes (State v. T.W.C., 2025-Ohio-2890) 1. Introduction...
Hawaiʻi Supreme Court Clarifies Mandatory Director Indemnification and “Fees-on-Fees” Recovery: Loyalty Development Company, Ltd. v. Ching (2025)

Hawaiʻi Supreme Court Clarifies Mandatory Director Indemnification and “Fees-on-Fees” Recovery: Loyalty Development Company, Ltd. v. Ching (2025)

Date: Aug 25, 2025
Hawaiʻi Supreme Court Clarifies Mandatory Director Indemnification and “Fees-on-Fees” Recovery Loyalty Development Company, Ltd. v. Ching, 154 Haw. 256 (2025) Introduction In Loyalty Development...
Delaware Supreme Court Extends Rite Aid’s “Specific-and-Individualized Injury” Test to Property Damage and Endorsements – Commentary on In re CVS Opioid Insurance Litigation (2025)

Delaware Supreme Court Extends Rite Aid’s “Specific-and-Individualized Injury” Test to Property Damage and Endorsements – Commentary on In re CVS Opioid Insurance Litigation (2025)

Date: Aug 25, 2025
Delaware Supreme Court Extends Rite Aid’s “Specific-and-Individualized Injury” Test to Property Damage and Endorsements Introduction In In re CVS Opioid Insurance Litigation, No. 482, 2024 (Aug. 18,...
Smith v. State: Defining the Limits of “Counsel Abandonment” and Pro-Se Filings in Idaho Post-Conviction Practice

Smith v. State: Defining the Limits of “Counsel Abandonment” and Pro-Se Filings in Idaho Post-Conviction Practice

Date: Aug 25, 2025
Smith v. State: Defining the Limits of “Counsel Abandonment” and Pro-Se Filings in Idaho Post-Conviction Practice 1. Introduction The Idaho Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Smith v. State, Docket No....
“Beyond Propensity”: State v. Montero and the New Latitude for Admitting Uncharged Sexual-Misconduct Evidence under R.I. R. Evid. 404(b)

“Beyond Propensity”: State v. Montero and the New Latitude for Admitting Uncharged Sexual-Misconduct Evidence under R.I. R. Evid. 404(b)

Date: Aug 25, 2025
“Beyond Propensity”: State v. Montero and the New Latitude for Admitting Uncharged Sexual-Misconduct Evidence under R.I. R. Evid. 404(b) Introduction In State v. Miguel Montero, No. 2023-92-C.A....
“Truthful-but-Misleading” Communications, Limited Proximate Cause, and Line-and-Scope Constraints: The New Framework from Flickinger v. King (Ala. 2025)

“Truthful-but-Misleading” Communications, Limited Proximate Cause, and Line-and-Scope Constraints: The New Framework from Flickinger v. King (Ala. 2025)

Date: Aug 25, 2025
“Truthful-but-Misleading” Communications, Limited Proximate Cause, and Line-and-Scope Constraints: The Alabama Supreme Court’s New Framework for Tortious Interference in Flickinger v. King (2025)...
Supreme Court of Alabama Clarifies Enforceability of Text-Message Settlements: Definiteness and the Mirror-Image Rule Remain Paramount

Supreme Court of Alabama Clarifies Enforceability of Text-Message Settlements: Definiteness and the Mirror-Image Rule Remain Paramount

Date: Aug 25, 2025
Supreme Court of Alabama Clarifies Enforceability of Text-Message Settlements: Definiteness and the Mirror-Image Rule Remain Paramount Introduction In iWTNS, Inc.; Leveraged, LLC; and Bradley Lewis...
Severe, Unexplained Abuse Supports Sibling Neglect; Appellate Courts Cannot Raise Unpreserved Theories in Juvenile Cases — In re E.H. (N.C. 2025)

Severe, Unexplained Abuse Supports Sibling Neglect; Appellate Courts Cannot Raise Unpreserved Theories in Juvenile Cases — In re E.H. (N.C. 2025)

Date: Aug 23, 2025
Severe, Unexplained Abuse Supports Sibling Neglect; Appellate Courts Cannot Raise Unpreserved Theories in Juvenile Cases — In re E.H. (N.C. 2025) Introduction In In re E.H., the Supreme Court of...
State v. Bobian: Kansas draws a bright line on “we know” prosecutorial rhetoric and reaffirms the low threshold for voluntary intoxication instructions

State v. Bobian: Kansas draws a bright line on “we know” prosecutorial rhetoric and reaffirms the low threshold for voluntary intoxication instructions

Date: Aug 23, 2025
State v. Bobian: Kansas draws a bright line on “we know” prosecutorial rhetoric and reaffirms the low threshold for voluntary intoxication instructions Introduction In State v. Bobian (Kansas Supreme...
Context Controls the Sentence: Oral Pronouncements Are Read in Light of the Entire Hearing; Clarification of Domestic Violence Designation, Fees, and DNA Assessment in State v. Peterson

Context Controls the Sentence: Oral Pronouncements Are Read in Light of the Entire Hearing; Clarification of Domestic Violence Designation, Fees, and DNA Assessment in State v. Peterson

Date: Aug 23, 2025
Context Controls the Sentence: Oral Pronouncements Are Read in Light of the Entire Hearing; Clarification of Domestic Violence Designation, Fees, and DNA Assessment in State v. Peterson Introduction...
Delegating the Temporal Reach of Arbitration Agreements: Commentary on Cerna v. Pearland Urban Air, LLC

Delegating the Temporal Reach of Arbitration Agreements: Commentary on Cerna v. Pearland Urban Air, LLC

Date: Aug 23, 2025
Delegating the Temporal Reach of Arbitration Agreements: Cerna v. Pearland Urban Air, LLC (Tex. 2025) Introduction In Abigail Dalila Cerna, as Next Friend of R.W. v. Pearland Urban Air, LLC, the...
Escrow Is Not an Operating Account: First Department Clarifies Rule 1.15 and Rejects Preclusive Effect of Vacated Admonition (Matter of Edelman, 2025)

Escrow Is Not an Operating Account: First Department Clarifies Rule 1.15 and Rejects Preclusive Effect of Vacated Admonition (Matter of Edelman, 2025)

Date: Aug 22, 2025
Escrow Is Not an Operating Account: First Department Clarifies Rule 1.15 and Rejects Preclusive Effect of Vacated Admonition Introduction This commentary examines the Appellate Division, First...
No Stayed Probationary Suspensions and Narrow Nunc Pro Tunc Relief in Reciprocal Discipline: Commentary on Matter of Barocas (2025 NY Slip Op 04750)

No Stayed Probationary Suspensions and Narrow Nunc Pro Tunc Relief in Reciprocal Discipline: Commentary on Matter of Barocas (2025 NY Slip Op 04750)

Date: Aug 22, 2025
No Stayed Probationary Suspensions and Narrow Nunc Pro Tunc Relief in Reciprocal Discipline: Matter of Barocas (2025 NY Slip Op 04750) Introduction In Matter of Barocas (2025 NY Slip Op 04750), the...
Iloff v. LaPaille: Employers Must Make a Reasonable Legal Inquiry to Invoke the §1194.2 Good‑Faith Defense; Paid Sick Leave Claims Are Cognizable in Berman Appeals

Iloff v. LaPaille: Employers Must Make a Reasonable Legal Inquiry to Invoke the §1194.2 Good‑Faith Defense; Paid Sick Leave Claims Are Cognizable in Berman Appeals

Date: Aug 22, 2025
Iloff v. LaPaille: Employers Must Make a Reasonable Legal Inquiry to Invoke the §1194.2 Good‑Faith Defense; Paid Sick Leave Claims Are Cognizable in Berman Appeals Introduction In Iloff v. LaPaille,...
Windom v. Florida: No Sixth Amendment “Evolving Standards of Decency”; Rule 3.112 Not Retroactive; Strict Limits on Successive Capital Postconviction Relief Reaffirmed

Windom v. Florida: No Sixth Amendment “Evolving Standards of Decency”; Rule 3.112 Not Retroactive; Strict Limits on Successive Capital Postconviction Relief Reaffirmed

Date: Aug 22, 2025
Windom v. Florida: No Sixth Amendment “Evolving Standards of Decency”; Rule 3.112 Not Retroactive; Strict Limits on Successive Capital Postconviction Relief Reaffirmed Introduction In Curtis Windom...
“Once Recused, Still Disqualified”: Arizona Supreme Court Requires Disclosure and Opportunity to Object Before a Judge Re‑Enters a Case After Recusal

“Once Recused, Still Disqualified”: Arizona Supreme Court Requires Disclosure and Opportunity to Object Before a Judge Re‑Enters a Case After Recusal

Date: Aug 22, 2025
“Once Recused, Still Disqualified”: Arizona Supreme Court Requires Disclosure and Opportunity to Object Before a Judge Re‑Enters a Case After Recusal Introduction In Contreras v. Bourke, the Arizona...
The Excessive Fines Clause Meets Executive Law § 63(12): Appellate Division Vacates Disgorgement, Affirms Injunctive Remedies in People v. Trump

The Excessive Fines Clause Meets Executive Law § 63(12): Appellate Division Vacates Disgorgement, Affirms Injunctive Remedies in People v. Trump

Date: Aug 22, 2025
The Excessive Fines Clause Meets Executive Law § 63(12): Appellate Division Vacates Disgorgement, Affirms Injunctive Remedies in People v. Trump Introduction People v. Trump, 2025 NY Slip Op 04756...
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