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

“Affirmative Acceptance Equals Waiver” – Delaware Supreme Court Clarifies Counsel-Induced Waiver and Remedies for Discovery Violations in Dillard v. State

“Affirmative Acceptance Equals Waiver” – Delaware Supreme Court Clarifies Counsel-Induced Waiver and Remedies for Discovery Violations in Dillard v. State

Date: Jul 4, 2025
“Affirmative Acceptance Equals Waiver” – Delaware Supreme Court Clarifies Counsel-Induced Waiver and Remedies for Discovery Violations in Dillard v. State Introduction In Dillard v. State (Del. Supr....
Delaware Supreme Court Clarifies the “Closed-Mind” Standard in Sentencing: Moral Condemnation Does Not Equal Judicial Bias – Commentary on Gingerich v. State (2025)

Delaware Supreme Court Clarifies the “Closed-Mind” Standard in Sentencing: Moral Condemnation Does Not Equal Judicial Bias – Commentary on Gingerich v. State (2025)

Date: Jul 4, 2025
Delaware Supreme Court Clarifies the “Closed-Mind” Standard in Sentencing: Moral Condemnation Does Not Equal Judicial Bias – Commentary on Gingerich v. State (2025) Introduction Gingerich v. State,...

    When Silence Is Not Enough: Delaware Supreme Court Narrows the
    “Inherently Unknowable Injury” Tolling Doctrine in Escheated-Securities
    Cases – Saunders v. Lightwave Logic, Inc. (2025)

When Silence Is Not Enough: Delaware Supreme Court Narrows the “Inherently Unknowable Injury” Tolling Doctrine in Escheated-Securities Cases – Saunders v. Lightwave Logic, Inc. (2025)

Date: Jul 4, 2025
When Silence Is Not Enough: Delaware Supreme Court Narrows the “Inherently Unknowable Injury” Tolling Doctrine in Escheated-Securities Cases – Saunders v. Lightwave Logic, Inc. (2025) Introduction...
Belter v. Burlington (2025): Refining Party-Joinder and Municipal-Immunity Doctrine in Vermont Environmental Tort Litigation

Belter v. Burlington (2025): Refining Party-Joinder and Municipal-Immunity Doctrine in Vermont Environmental Tort Litigation

Date: Jul 4, 2025
Belter v. City of Burlington (2025 VT 35): Refining Party-Joinder and Municipal-Immunity Doctrine in Vermont Environmental Tort Litigation Introduction Belter v. City of Burlington is a 2025 decision...
DNA-Based Exoneration as the Exclusive Gateway to VIPA Compensation: A Commentary on Reynolds v. State of Vermont (2025 VT 34)

DNA-Based Exoneration as the Exclusive Gateway to VIPA Compensation: A Commentary on Reynolds v. State of Vermont (2025 VT 34)

Date: Jul 4, 2025
DNA-Based Exoneration as the Exclusive Gateway to VIPA Compensation: A Comprehensive Commentary on Stanley Reynolds v. State of Vermont, 2025 VT 34 1. Introduction In Reynolds v. State of Vermont,...
Dugan v. Sorensen: Redefining “Course of Conduct” and Limiting Justification Defenses in Nebraska Harassment Protection Orders

Dugan v. Sorensen: Redefining “Course of Conduct” and Limiting Justification Defenses in Nebraska Harassment Protection Orders

Date: Jul 4, 2025
Dugan v. Sorensen: Clarifying the “Course of Conduct” Requirement and Curtailing Justification Defenses for Harassment Protection Orders in Nebraska 1. Introduction On 27 June 2025 the Nebraska...
Expert Testimony as the Mandatory Benchmark for the Standard of Care: Commentary on J.R.M.B. v. Alegent Creighton Health (319 Neb. 287)

Expert Testimony as the Mandatory Benchmark for the Standard of Care: Commentary on J.R.M.B. v. Alegent Creighton Health (319 Neb. 287)

Date: Jul 4, 2025
Expert Testimony as the Mandatory Benchmark for the Standard of Care: Commentary on J.R.M.B. v. Alegent Creighton Health, 319 Neb. 287 (Neb. Sup. Ct. 2025) 1. Introduction In J.R.M.B. v. Alegent...
“The Jaksha Doctrine” – Finality of Stipulated Custody-Modification Orders & Limits on Post-Term Vacatur in Nebraska

“The Jaksha Doctrine” – Finality of Stipulated Custody-Modification Orders & Limits on Post-Term Vacatur in Nebraska

Date: Jul 4, 2025
“The Jaksha Doctrine” – Finality of Stipulated Custody-Modification Orders & Limits on Post-Term Vacatur in Nebraska Introduction Jaksha v. Jaksha, 319 Neb. 308 (2025), arises from protracted...
Reaffirming the Narrow Application of Permanent Disbarment: The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Clarifies the Keller Threshold in In re Cappuccio

Reaffirming the Narrow Application of Permanent Disbarment: The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Clarifies the Keller Threshold in In re Cappuccio

Date: Jul 4, 2025
Reaffirming the Narrow Application of Permanent Disbarment: The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Clarifies the Keller Threshold in In re Cappuccio 1. Introduction On 2 July 2025, the Supreme Court of...
“Sole-Discretion Easement Termination” Doctrine Established in Radford v. Van Orden (Idaho 2025)

“Sole-Discretion Easement Termination” Doctrine Established in Radford v. Van Orden (Idaho 2025)

Date: Jul 4, 2025
“Sole-Discretion Easement Termination” Doctrine Comprehensive Commentary on Radford v. Van Orden, Supreme Court of Idaho (2025) 1. Introduction Parties. Mark Radford and his entity, Hallo Properties,...
“No Emergency of One’s Own Making” – The Montana Supreme Court Clarifies Timeliness and Factual Sufficiency for Original Jurisdiction Petitions

“No Emergency of One’s Own Making” – The Montana Supreme Court Clarifies Timeliness and Factual Sufficiency for Original Jurisdiction Petitions

Date: Jul 4, 2025
“No Emergency of One’s Own Making” – The Montana Supreme Court Clarifies Timeliness and Factual Sufficiency for Original Jurisdiction Petitions 1. Introduction On 1 July 2025, the Supreme Court of...
Settlement Offers Do Not Waive Contractual Conditions Precedent – A Commentary on Kratzer Construction v. Hardy Construction (2025 MT 140)

Settlement Offers Do Not Waive Contractual Conditions Precedent – A Commentary on Kratzer Construction v. Hardy Construction (2025 MT 140)

Date: Jul 4, 2025
Settlement Offers Do Not Waive Contractual Conditions Precedent Commentary on Kratzer Construction v. Hardy Construction Co., Inc., 2025 MT 140 Introduction In Kratzer Construction v. Hardy...

    Testimony by Non-Presiding Judges and the Discretionary Weight of GAL
    Recommendations in Montana Parenting-Plan Litigation

Testimony by Non-Presiding Judges and the Discretionary Weight of GAL Recommendations in Montana Parenting-Plan Litigation

Date: Jul 4, 2025
Testimony by Non-Presiding Judges and the Discretionary Weight of Guardian Ad Litem Recommendations in Montana Parenting-Plan Litigation 1. Introduction Case: In re the Marriage of Kahl & Sperano,...
Stipulations and Harmless Error: The Montana Supreme Court Refines Right-to-Counsel Violations, Tribal Transfer Motions, and ICWA Placement in In re I.R.S. & M.W.A.H.

Stipulations and Harmless Error: The Montana Supreme Court Refines Right-to-Counsel Violations, Tribal Transfer Motions, and ICWA Placement in In re I.R.S. & M.W.A.H.

Date: Jul 4, 2025
Stipulations and Harmless Error: The Montana Supreme Court Refines Right-to-Counsel Violations, Tribal Transfer Motions, and ICWA Placement in In re I.R.S. & M.W.A.H. Introduction On 1 July 2025 the...

    “More Than a Question”:  The Montana Supreme Court Clarifies that a Mere Inquiry
    Is Not a Motion to Transfer under MICWA § 41-3-1310 and Re-confirms the Narrow
    Scope of Relative Intervention in Indian Child Guardianships

“More Than a Question”: The Montana Supreme Court Clarifies that a Mere Inquiry Is Not a Motion to Transfer under MICWA § 41-3-1310 and Re-confirms the Narrow Scope of Relative Intervention in Indian Child Guardianships

Date: Jul 4, 2025
“More Than a Question”: The Montana Supreme Court Clarifies that a Mere Inquiry Is Not a Motion to Transfer under MICWA § 41-3-1310 and Re-confirms the Narrow Scope of Relative Intervention in Indian...
State v. Warr: Mandatory Second-Chance Withdrawal after Rejection of a Binding Plea Agreement under § 46-12-211(4), MCA

State v. Warr: Mandatory Second-Chance Withdrawal after Rejection of a Binding Plea Agreement under § 46-12-211(4), MCA

Date: Jul 4, 2025
State v. Warr: Mandatory Second-Chance Withdrawal after Rejection of a Binding Plea Agreement under § 46-12-211(4), MCA Introduction In State v. J. Warr, 2025 MT 138, the Montana Supreme Court...
State v. Welzel: Clarifying “Under the Order of the Court” for Credit on Time Spent in Residential Treatment Facilities

State v. Welzel: Clarifying “Under the Order of the Court” for Credit on Time Spent in Residential Treatment Facilities

Date: Jul 4, 2025
State v. Welzel: Clarifying “Under the Order of the Court” for Credit on Time Spent in Residential Treatment Facilities Introduction State v. Welzel, 2025 MT 136, is a decision of the Supreme Court...
Expanding Fee-Shifting under Montana’s UDJA: A Commentary on Upper Missouri Waterkeeper v. DNRC (2025)

Expanding Fee-Shifting under Montana’s UDJA: A Commentary on Upper Missouri Waterkeeper v. DNRC (2025)

Date: Jul 4, 2025
Expanding Fee-Shifting under Montana’s UDJA: A Detailed Commentary on Upper Missouri Waterkeeper v. Broadwater County & DNRC (2025 MT 137) 1. Introduction Upper Missouri Waterkeeper, several local...

        State v. Crist – Idaho Supreme Court Confirms Judicial Authority to Decide
        “Substantial Equivalency” Under SORA

State v. Crist – Idaho Supreme Court Confirms Judicial Authority to Decide “Substantial Equivalency” Under SORA

Date: Jul 4, 2025
“We Do, the Bureau May”: State v. Crist and the Court-Centric Rule for Determining Substantial Equivalency Under Idaho’s Sex Offender Registration Act Introduction State v. Crist, 50737 (Idaho July 1...
“Meaningful Review Revisited” –  South Hill Meat Lockers Inc. v. Idaho Transportation Department (Idaho 2025)

“Meaningful Review Revisited” – South Hill Meat Lockers Inc. v. Idaho Transportation Department (Idaho 2025)

Date: Jul 4, 2025
Meaningful Review Revisited: Idaho Supreme Court Narrows “Plan-or-Design Immunity” to Government Plans & Change Orders that Receive Actual, Documented Scrutiny South Hill Meat Lockers Inc. v. Idaho...
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