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

No Executive Exception to Civil Wage Theft Liability Under Labor Law §§ 193 and 198 After the No Wage Theft Loophole Act

No Executive Exception to Civil Wage Theft Liability Under Labor Law §§ 193 and 198 After the No Wage Theft Loophole Act

Date: Oct 1, 2025
No Executive Exception to Civil Wage Theft Liability Under Labor Law §§ 193 and 198 After the No Wage Theft Loophole Act Patel v. Maybank Kim Eng Securities USA Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 05194 (1st Dep’t...
No Second Bite at the Apple under Montana’s MHRA: Exclusive Administrative Pathways, Strict 30/90-Day Deadlines, and Mailing Suffices for Due-Process Notice

No Second Bite at the Apple under Montana’s MHRA: Exclusive Administrative Pathways, Strict 30/90-Day Deadlines, and Mailing Suffices for Due-Process Notice

Date: Oct 1, 2025
No Second Bite at the Apple under Montana’s MHRA: Exclusive Administrative Pathways, Strict 30/90-Day Deadlines, and Mailing Suffices for Due-Process Notice Note: The Montana Supreme Court designated...
Reverse Adverse Possession of Ditch Easements Requires Uniform, Conspicuous Exclusion; “Prevailing Party” Fees Under § 70‑17‑112, MCA, Turn on Statutory Claims Alone

Reverse Adverse Possession of Ditch Easements Requires Uniform, Conspicuous Exclusion; “Prevailing Party” Fees Under § 70‑17‑112, MCA, Turn on Statutory Claims Alone

Date: Oct 1, 2025
Reverse Adverse Possession of Ditch Easements Requires Uniform, Conspicuous Exclusion; “Prevailing Party” Fees Under § 70‑17‑112, MCA, Turn on Statutory Claims Alone Introduction In Apecella v....
HRCP Rule 60(b) Reconsideration Motions Toll the HRAP Rule 4(a)(1) Appeal Deadline When Filed Within the 30-Day Appeal Period

HRCP Rule 60(b) Reconsideration Motions Toll the HRAP Rule 4(a)(1) Appeal Deadline When Filed Within the 30-Day Appeal Period

Date: Oct 1, 2025
HRCP Rule 60(b) Reconsideration Motions Toll the HRAP Rule 4(a)(1) Appeal Deadline When Filed Within the 30-Day Appeal Period I. Introduction Case: Mālama Kakanilua v. Director of the Department of...
Corporate Venue Statute Applies to LLCs: Alabama Supreme Court Overrules WMS and Aligns LLC Venue with § 6-3-7

Corporate Venue Statute Applies to LLCs: Alabama Supreme Court Overrules WMS and Aligns LLC Venue with § 6-3-7

Date: Sep 30, 2025
Corporate Venue Statute Applies to LLCs: Alabama Supreme Court Overrules WMS and Aligns LLC Venue with § 6-3-7 Introduction In Ex parte Phillip H. Rivers, Steven Nobles, Todd Martin, Stan Roberts,...
Ex parte Thompson: Post-Deposition Inaction Defeats Relation Back — Due Diligence Requires Timely Discovery and Prompt Substitution Under Rule 9(h)

Ex parte Thompson: Post-Deposition Inaction Defeats Relation Back — Due Diligence Requires Timely Discovery and Prompt Substitution Under Rule 9(h)

Date: Sep 30, 2025
Ex parte Thompson: Post-Deposition Inaction Defeats Relation Back — Due Diligence Requires Timely Discovery and Prompt Substitution Under Rule 9(h) Introduction In Ex parte Grisby Jacob Thompson, the...
When a Continuance Extends Rule 59.1: Alabama Supreme Court Requires Continuance Motions and Orders to Appear in the Appellate Record

When a Continuance Extends Rule 59.1: Alabama Supreme Court Requires Continuance Motions and Orders to Appear in the Appellate Record

Date: Sep 30, 2025
When a Continuance Extends Rule 59.1: Alabama Supreme Court Requires Continuance Motions and Orders to Appear in the Appellate Record Introduction In Teresa Williams and Barney’s Childcare and...
No Preservation Bar to “Failure to Charge an Offense” in De Novo Municipal Appeals; Rule 13.2 Supplants Pre‑Rules Ordinance‑Averment Requirements

No Preservation Bar to “Failure to Charge an Offense” in De Novo Municipal Appeals; Rule 13.2 Supplants Pre‑Rules Ordinance‑Averment Requirements

Date: Sep 30, 2025
No Preservation Bar to “Failure to Charge an Offense” in De Novo Municipal Appeals; Rule 13.2 Supplants Pre‑Rules Ordinance‑Averment Requirements Case: Ex parte John Sandifer; Ex parte Curtis Tanner;...
Jury Factfinding and Second Juries in Habitual Criminal Sentencing: Commentary on People v. Gregg (2025 CO 57)

Jury Factfinding and Second Juries in Habitual Criminal Sentencing: Commentary on People v. Gregg (2025 CO 57)

Date: Sep 30, 2025
Jury Factfinding and Second Juries in Habitual Criminal Sentencing: Commentary on People v. Gregg (2025 CO 57) I. Introduction The Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Gregg, 2025 CO 57,...
Posthumous Vacatur of 2005 Registration Suspensions: Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies that Attorney Registration Sanctions Do Not Survive a Lawyer’s Death

Posthumous Vacatur of 2005 Registration Suspensions: Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies that Attorney Registration Sanctions Do Not Survive a Lawyer’s Death

Date: Sep 30, 2025
Posthumous Vacatur of 2005 Registration Suspensions: Ohio Supreme Court Clarifies that Attorney Registration Sanctions Do Not Survive a Lawyer’s Death Introduction In an Administrative Actions entry...
Delegation as Injury: Arizona Supreme Court Recognizes Legislative Standing to Challenge Voter‑Enacted Agency Powers and Clarifies VPA Limits in Montenegro v. Fontes

Delegation as Injury: Arizona Supreme Court Recognizes Legislative Standing to Challenge Voter‑Enacted Agency Powers and Clarifies VPA Limits in Montenegro v. Fontes

Date: Sep 30, 2025
Delegation as Injury: Arizona Supreme Court Recognizes Legislative Standing to Challenge Voter‑Enacted Agency Powers and Clarifies VPA Limits in Montenegro v. Fontes Introduction In Montenegro v....
People v. Gregg: Jury Fact‑Finding for Habitual Criminal Status and No Double Jeopardy Bar to a Second Jury

People v. Gregg: Jury Fact‑Finding for Habitual Criminal Status and No Double Jeopardy Bar to a Second Jury

Date: Sep 30, 2025
People v. Gregg: Jury Fact‑Finding for Habitual Criminal Status and No Double Jeopardy Bar to a Second Jury I. Introduction In People v. Gregg, 2025 CO 57, 576 P.3d 725 (Colo. 2025), the Colorado...
People v. Gregg (2025 CO 57): Jury-Found “Separate Episodes,” Judge Sufficiency Review, and No Double Jeopardy Bar to a Second Habitual Jury

People v. Gregg (2025 CO 57): Jury-Found “Separate Episodes,” Judge Sufficiency Review, and No Double Jeopardy Bar to a Second Habitual Jury

Date: Sep 30, 2025
Jury Determines “Separate and Distinct Criminal Episodes” Under Pre-2025 Habitual Scheme; Trial Judge Performs Sufficiency Review; Second Jury Permitted Without Double Jeopardy Introduction In re...
Nevada Supreme Court Clarifies: Post‑Judgment Sealing Orders Are Not Appealable Unless They Affect Rights Embedded in the Final Judgment (Bloom v. Rodgers, 2025)

Nevada Supreme Court Clarifies: Post‑Judgment Sealing Orders Are Not Appealable Unless They Affect Rights Embedded in the Final Judgment (Bloom v. Rodgers, 2025)

Date: Sep 30, 2025
Nevada Supreme Court Clarifies: Post‑Judgment Sealing Orders Are Not Appealable Unless They Affect Rights Embedded in the Final Judgment Case Overview and Procedural Posture Case: Bloom v. Rodgers...
Limited Pearce Presumption in Nevada Parole Proceedings: No Vindictiveness Presumed When the Parole Board Self‑Corrects

Limited Pearce Presumption in Nevada Parole Proceedings: No Vindictiveness Presumed When the Parole Board Self‑Corrects

Date: Sep 27, 2025
Limited Pearce Presumption in Nevada Parole Proceedings: No Vindictiveness Presumed When the Parole Board Self‑Corrects Introduction This commentary analyzes the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision in...
Gatekeeping the Three‑Judge Panel: Wisconsin Supreme Court Requires Threshold Showing that a Redistricting Suit Is an “Apportionment” Challenge Before § 751.035 Is Triggered

Gatekeeping the Three‑Judge Panel: Wisconsin Supreme Court Requires Threshold Showing that a Redistricting Suit Is an “Apportionment” Challenge Before § 751.035 Is Triggered

Date: Sep 27, 2025
Gatekeeping the Three‑Judge Panel: Wisconsin Supreme Court Requires Threshold Showing that a Redistricting Suit Is an “Apportionment” Challenge Before § 751.035 Is Triggered Introduction In a...
Gatekeeping Before Appointing Three‑Judge Redistricting Panels: Wisconsin Supreme Court to Decide What Counts as an “Apportionment” Challenge Under Wis. Stat. § 801.50(4m)

Gatekeeping Before Appointing Three‑Judge Redistricting Panels: Wisconsin Supreme Court to Decide What Counts as an “Apportionment” Challenge Under Wis. Stat. § 801.50(4m)

Date: Sep 27, 2025
Gatekeeping Before Appointing Three‑Judge Redistricting Panels: Wisconsin Supreme Court to Decide What Counts as an “Apportionment” Challenge Under Wis. Stat. § 801.50(4m) Introduction In Wisconsin...
No Initial Nonschedule Award, No Bar to SLU: Third Department Confirms SLU Eligibility and Retroactive Reopening Post‑Taher

No Initial Nonschedule Award, No Bar to SLU: Third Department Confirms SLU Eligibility and Retroactive Reopening Post‑Taher

Date: Sep 27, 2025
No Initial Nonschedule Award, No Bar to SLU: Third Department Confirms SLU Eligibility and Retroactive Reopening Post‑Taher Case: Matter of Romero v. Akorn Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 05128 (App Div, 3d...
Reaffirming the NMPRC’s Discretion: Partial Imprudence Disallowances, Recovery of Undepreciated Nuclear Lease Investments, Deferral of Decommissioning Allocations, and Ratepayer Recovery of Board Governance Costs

Reaffirming the NMPRC’s Discretion: Partial Imprudence Disallowances, Recovery of Undepreciated Nuclear Lease Investments, Deferral of Decommissioning Allocations, and Ratepayer Recovery of Board Governance Costs

Date: Sep 27, 2025
Reaffirming the NMPRC’s Discretion: Partial Imprudence Disallowances, Recovery of Undepreciated Nuclear Lease Investments, Deferral of Decommissioning Allocations, and Ratepayer Recovery of Board...
Campbell v. State: No State Duty to Collect Third‑Party Digital Evidence and the Primacy of Strickland Prejudice in Postconviction Review

Campbell v. State: No State Duty to Collect Third‑Party Digital Evidence and the Primacy of Strickland Prejudice in Postconviction Review

Date: Sep 27, 2025
Campbell v. State: No State Duty to Collect Third‑Party Digital Evidence and the Primacy of Strickland Prejudice in Postconviction Review Introduction In Campbell v. State, 2025 ND 152, the North...
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