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

Notice-of-Claim Prerequisite Extends to Economic Torts Against Village Officials Acting Within Scope; Donnelly Act and Tortious Interference Pleading Standards Reaffirmed — Commentary on Dibble v. Schroedel (2025 NY Slip Op 04083)

Notice-of-Claim Prerequisite Extends to Economic Torts Against Village Officials Acting Within Scope; Donnelly Act and Tortious Interference Pleading Standards Reaffirmed — Commentary on Dibble v. Schroedel (2025 NY Slip Op 04083)

Date: Jul 10, 2025
Notice-of-Claim Prerequisite Extends to Economic Torts Against Village Officials Acting Within Scope; Donnelly Act and Tortious Interference Pleading Standards Reaffirmed Commentary on Dibble v....
Anti‑SLAPP Is No Shield to Reciprocal Attorney Discipline; Non‑Relitigation and Rule 8.2(a) Reaffirmed — Matter of Jacobs (2025 NY Slip Op 04093)

Anti‑SLAPP Is No Shield to Reciprocal Attorney Discipline; Non‑Relitigation and Rule 8.2(a) Reaffirmed — Matter of Jacobs (2025 NY Slip Op 04093)

Date: Jul 10, 2025
Anti‑SLAPP Is No Shield to Reciprocal Attorney Discipline; Non‑Relitigation and Rule 8.2(a) Reaffirmed — Matter of Jacobs (2025 NY Slip Op 04093) Introduction Matter of Jacobs is a reciprocal...
Recasting Claims Cannot Evade Res Judicata: Dismissal With Prejudice Bars Later Money‑Had‑and‑Received, Conversion, and Interference Theories; No Fiduciary Duty Owed by Opposing Escrow Agent

Recasting Claims Cannot Evade Res Judicata: Dismissal With Prejudice Bars Later Money‑Had‑and‑Received, Conversion, and Interference Theories; No Fiduciary Duty Owed by Opposing Escrow Agent

Date: Jul 10, 2025
Recasting Claims Cannot Evade Res Judicata: Dismissal With Prejudice Bars Later Money‑Had‑and‑Received, Conversion, and Interference Theories; No Fiduciary Duty Owed by Opposing Escrow Agent Case:...
Evers v. Marklein: Wisconsin Adopts the Chadha Standard— Legislative Vetoes of Administrative Rules Declared Unconstitutional

Evers v. Marklein: Wisconsin Adopts the Chadha Standard— Legislative Vetoes of Administrative Rules Declared Unconstitutional

Date: Jul 9, 2025
Evers v. Marklein: Wisconsin Adopts the Chadha Standard— Legislative Vetoes of Administrative Rules Declared Unconstitutional 1. Introduction In Evers v. Marklein, 2025 WI 36, the Supreme Court of...
Mandatory Attorney’s-Fee Awards in Certificate-of-Need Litigation Confined to Chancery-Court Appeals: Commentary on Mississippi Methodist Hosp. & Rehab. Ctr. v. MSDH (Miss. 2025)

Mandatory Attorney’s-Fee Awards in Certificate-of-Need Litigation Confined to Chancery-Court Appeals: Commentary on Mississippi Methodist Hosp. & Rehab. Ctr. v. MSDH (Miss. 2025)

Date: Jul 9, 2025
Mandatory Attorney’s-Fee Awards in Certificate-of-Need Litigation Confined to Chancery-Court Appeals A Comprehensive Commentary on Mississippi Methodist Hospital & Rehabilitation Center Inc. v. MSDH...

        “No Fee Without Privity” – Mississippi Supreme Court Forecloses
        Third-Party-Beneficiary, Quantum-Meruit and Common-Fund Claims by
        Associated Counsel against the State

“No Fee Without Privity” – Mississippi Supreme Court Forecloses Third-Party-Beneficiary, Quantum-Meruit and Common-Fund Claims by Associated Counsel against the State

Date: Jul 9, 2025
“No Fee Without Privity” – Mississippi Supreme Court Forecloses Third-Party-Beneficiary, Quantum-Meruit and Common-Fund Claims by Associated Counsel against the State Introduction In Roedel Parsons...
The “Depicted-Access Facilities” Doctrine: Alabama Supreme Court Clarifies When Easement Alterations Require Unanimous Consent

The “Depicted-Access Facilities” Doctrine: Alabama Supreme Court Clarifies When Easement Alterations Require Unanimous Consent

Date: Jul 9, 2025
The “Depicted-Access Facilities” Doctrine: Alabama Supreme Court Clarifies When Easement Alterations Require Unanimous Consent Introduction 790 Montclair, LLC v. The Station at Crestline Heights, LLC...
Adverse Possession Uninterrupted by Federal Forfeiture: Commentary on New Phase Realty, LLC v. Fournier

Adverse Possession Uninterrupted by Federal Forfeiture: Commentary on New Phase Realty, LLC v. Fournier

Date: Jul 9, 2025
Adverse Possession Uninterrupted by Federal Forfeiture: A Comprehensive Commentary on New Phase Realty, LLC v. Jeremy J. Fournier (R.I. 2025) 1. Introduction In New Phase Realty, LLC v. Fournier, the...
Evers v. Marklein: Wisconsin Supreme Court Abolishes the Legislative Veto over Administrative Rules

Evers v. Marklein: Wisconsin Supreme Court Abolishes the Legislative Veto over Administrative Rules

Date: Jul 9, 2025
Evers v. Marklein (2025 WI 36): Wisconsin Supreme Court Abolishes the Legislative Veto over Administrative Rules 1  Introduction Case name: Tony Evers v. Howard Marklein Court: Supreme Court of...
Re-Drawing the Line on Certified Questions: The Michigan Supreme Court’s Clarification in In re Certified Question (Beaubien v. Trivedi)

Re-Drawing the Line on Certified Questions: The Michigan Supreme Court’s Clarification in In re Certified Question (Beaubien v. Trivedi)

Date: Jul 8, 2025
Re-Drawing the Line on Certified Questions: The Michigan Supreme Court’s Clarification in In re Certified Question (Beaubien v. Trivedi) Introduction On 3 July 2025, the Michigan Supreme Court...
People v. Brownfield and the Refined Test for Michigan Offense Variable 7: “Similarly Egregious” Conduct Coupled with Intent to Heighten Fear

People v. Brownfield and the Refined Test for Michigan Offense Variable 7: “Similarly Egregious” Conduct Coupled with Intent to Heighten Fear

Date: Jul 8, 2025
People v. Brownfield and the Refined Test for Michigan Offense Variable 7: “Similarly Egregious” Conduct Coupled with Intent to Heighten Fear Introduction The Michigan Supreme Court’s order in People...
Curing “Real-Party-in-Interest” Defects After Filing: The New Michigan Rule for No-Fault PIP Litigation

Curing “Real-Party-in-Interest” Defects After Filing: The New Michigan Rule for No-Fault PIP Litigation

Date: Jul 8, 2025
Curing “Real-Party-in-Interest” Defects After Filing: The New Michigan Rule for No-Fault PIP Litigation Introduction In C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC v. Progressive Michigan Insurance Co. and its...
Curing Real-Party-in-Interest Defects Post-Filing through Equitable Remedies: The Wallace / C-Spine Doctrine

Curing Real-Party-in-Interest Defects Post-Filing through Equitable Remedies: The Wallace / C-Spine Doctrine

Date: Jul 8, 2025
Curing Real-Party-in-Interest Defects Post-Filing through Equitable Remedies: The Michigan Supreme Court’s Wallace / C-Spine Doctrine Introduction In a consolidated opinion released 3 July...
Urbonas v. Gullison: Rhode Island Supreme Court Re-defines the Reach of the Acquiescence Doctrine and Affirms Appellate Re-Characterisation Power

Urbonas v. Gullison: Rhode Island Supreme Court Re-defines the Reach of the Acquiescence Doctrine and Affirms Appellate Re-Characterisation Power

Date: Jul 8, 2025
Urbonas v. Gullison: Rhode Island Supreme Court Re-defines the Reach of the Acquiescence Doctrine and Affirms Appellate Re-Characterisation Power 1. Introduction In Kristina Urbonas v. John Gullison,...
Stratoberdha v. Clements Properties, LLC –  
           Finality of Un-Appealed Family Court Orders and the
           Extension of § 9-24-7 Interlocutory-Appeal Rights

Stratoberdha v. Clements Properties, LLC – Finality of Un-Appealed Family Court Orders and the Extension of § 9-24-7 Interlocutory-Appeal Rights

Date: Jul 8, 2025
Stratoberdha v. Clements Properties, LLC (R.I. 2025) Finality of Un-Appealed Family Court Orders and the Extension of § 9-24-7 Interlocutory-Appeal Rights 1. Introduction Robert and Etleva...
Precision in Objections: State v. Lantigua Establishes a Specificity Requirement for Challenging Expert “Bolstering” Testimony in Rhode Island

Precision in Objections: State v. Lantigua Establishes a Specificity Requirement for Challenging Expert “Bolstering” Testimony in Rhode Island

Date: Jul 8, 2025
Precision in Objections: State v. Jose Lantigua (R.I. 2025) Establishes a Specificity Requirement for Challenging Expert “Bolstering” Testimony 1. Introduction State v. Lantigua, decided by the Rhode...
Clarifying “Accumulated Depreciation”: Rhode Island Supreme Court Mandates Uniform Financial-Accounting Depreciation for Telecommunications Tangible Personal Property Tax

Clarifying “Accumulated Depreciation”: Rhode Island Supreme Court Mandates Uniform Financial-Accounting Depreciation for Telecommunications Tangible Personal Property Tax

Date: Jul 8, 2025
Clarifying “Accumulated Depreciation”: Rhode Island Supreme Court Mandates Uniform Financial-Accounting Depreciation for Telecommunications Tangible Personal Property Tax Introduction On 3 July 2025,...

        “All Means ALL”: Michigan Supreme Court Mandates Post-July 1, 2020
        Bodily-Injury Minimums in Every Auto Policy Delivered After June 11, 2019

“All Means ALL”: Michigan Supreme Court Mandates Post-July 1, 2020 Bodily-Injury Minimums in Every Auto Policy Delivered After June 11, 2019

Date: Jul 7, 2025
“All Means ALL”: Michigan Supreme Court Mandates Post-July 1, 2020 Bodily-Injury Minimums in Every Auto Policy Delivered After June 11, 2019 1. Introduction Bonter v. Progressive Marathon Insurance...
Cumulative Conveyances Exceeding 50 % of a Corporation’s Shares Trigger Uncapping under Michigan’s GPTA – Commentary on Resort Properties Co-operative v. Waterloo Township (2025)

Cumulative Conveyances Exceeding 50 % of a Corporation’s Shares Trigger Uncapping under Michigan’s GPTA – Commentary on Resort Properties Co-operative v. Waterloo Township (2025)

Date: Jul 7, 2025
Cumulative Conveyances Exceeding 50 % of a Corporation’s Shares Trigger Uncapping under Michigan’s GPTA Commentary on Resort Properties Co-operative v. Waterloo Township, Supreme Court of Michigan, 2...
Contractual Examples as Plain-Language Clarifiers: Guilmette v. PHH Mortgage and the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s New Guidance on Integrated Disclosure Statements

Contractual Examples as Plain-Language Clarifiers: Guilmette v. PHH Mortgage and the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s New Guidance on Integrated Disclosure Statements

Date: Jul 7, 2025
Contractual Examples as Plain-Language Clarifiers: Guilmette v. PHH Mortgage Services (R.I. 2025) 1. Introduction Dino J. Guilmette v. PHH Mortgage Services F/K/A Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC et al....
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