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

Supervised Visitation Conditioned on Rehabilitation Programs Upheld Under Best-Interest Review in Nonprecedential Memorandum Decision

Supervised Visitation Conditioned on Rehabilitation Programs Upheld Under Best-Interest Review in Nonprecedential Memorandum Decision

Date: Sep 25, 2025
Supervised Visitation Conditioned on Rehabilitation Programs Upheld Under Best-Interest Review in Nonprecedential Memorandum Decision Case: In re the Parenting of J.E.B. & B.L.B., 2025 MT 216N (Mont....
State v. Post: Montana Supreme Court Requires On-the-Record Ability-to-Pay Findings for Criminal Fines and Surcharges; Oral Pronouncement Controls Over Written Judgment

State v. Post: Montana Supreme Court Requires On-the-Record Ability-to-Pay Findings for Criminal Fines and Surcharges; Oral Pronouncement Controls Over Written Judgment

Date: Sep 25, 2025
State v. Post: Mandatory Ability-to-Pay Findings for Fines, Fees, and Surcharges; Oral Sentence Controls Introduction In State v. Post, 2025 MT 215 (Mont. Sept. 23, 2025), the Montana Supreme Court...
Credibility of Oral Modified‑Duty Offers Controls TTD Termination: West Virginia’s High Court Reaffirms Deference to the Board of Review Under § 23‑4‑7a(e)

Credibility of Oral Modified‑Duty Offers Controls TTD Termination: West Virginia’s High Court Reaffirms Deference to the Board of Review Under § 23‑4‑7a(e)

Date: Sep 25, 2025
Credibility of Oral Modified‑Duty Offers Controls TTD Termination: West Virginia’s High Court Reaffirms Deference to the Board of Review Under § 23‑4‑7a(e) Introduction In Dainel Nicole Smith v. West...
Accident Location Is Not Dispositive: Evidence, Not Assertions, Controls Transfers Under Alabama’s Forum Non Conveniens Statute (§ 6-3-21.1)

Accident Location Is Not Dispositive: Evidence, Not Assertions, Controls Transfers Under Alabama’s Forum Non Conveniens Statute (§ 6-3-21.1)

Date: Sep 25, 2025
Accident Location Is Not Dispositive: Evidence, Not Assertions, Controls Transfers Under Alabama’s Forum Non Conveniens Statute (§ 6-3-21.1) Introduction This commentary analyzes the Supreme Court of...
Substantive Immunity Shields Municipalities from Negligence Claims Over Inoperable Interstate Streetlights

Substantive Immunity Shields Municipalities from Negligence Claims Over Inoperable Interstate Streetlights

Date: Sep 25, 2025
Substantive Immunity Shields Municipalities from Negligence Claims Over Inoperable Interstate Streetlights Introduction In Ex parte City of Birmingham (In re: Smith v. City of Birmingham), decided on...
Amendments that Materially Change Interest Terms Are New, Time‑Barred Claims Under Mississippi Probate Law (§ 91-7-151)

Amendments that Materially Change Interest Terms Are New, Time‑Barred Claims Under Mississippi Probate Law (§ 91-7-151)

Date: Sep 25, 2025
Amendments that Materially Change Interest Terms Are New, Time‑Barred Claims Under Mississippi Probate Law (§ 91-7-151) Case: In Re The Estate of Herbert Bernard Ivison, Jr.: Malouf & Malouf, PLLC v....
No Interlocutory Appeals Under Rule 103.03(b) for Trust Code Orders Restoring Property or Removing a Trustee

No Interlocutory Appeals Under Rule 103.03(b) for Trust Code Orders Restoring Property or Removing a Trustee

Date: Sep 25, 2025
No Interlocutory Appeals Under Rule 103.03(b) for Trust Code Orders Restoring Property or Removing a Trustee Introduction In this precedential decision, the Minnesota Supreme Court clarifies a...
“Received” Means Where Any Recipient Takes Possession: Minnesota Supreme Court Clarifies Service-Receipt Sourcing Is Not Limited to Direct Customers

“Received” Means Where Any Recipient Takes Possession: Minnesota Supreme Court Clarifies Service-Receipt Sourcing Is Not Limited to Direct Customers

Date: Sep 25, 2025
“Received” Means Where Any Recipient Takes Possession: Minnesota Supreme Court Clarifies Service-Receipt Sourcing Is Not Limited to Direct Customers Introduction In Humana MarketPoint, Inc., Relator...
Florida Supreme Court Clarifies That Eligibility Under the Dozier/Okeechobee Victim-Compensation Program Is Not “Newly Discovered Evidence” and Tightens Limits on Post‑Warrant Records and Due Process Challenges

Florida Supreme Court Clarifies That Eligibility Under the Dozier/Okeechobee Victim-Compensation Program Is Not “Newly Discovered Evidence” and Tightens Limits on Post‑Warrant Records and Due Process Challenges

Date: Sep 25, 2025
Florida Supreme Court Clarifies That Eligibility Under the Dozier/Okeechobee Victim-Compensation Program Is Not “Newly Discovered Evidence” and Tightens Limits on Post‑Warrant Records and Due Process...
Jones and the Clear-and-Convincing Public-Interest Test: No Automatic Expungement After Acquittal in South Dakota

Jones and the Clear-and-Convincing Public-Interest Test: No Automatic Expungement After Acquittal in South Dakota

Date: Sep 25, 2025
Jones and the Clear-and-Convincing Public-Interest Test: No Automatic Expungement After Acquittal in South Dakota Introduction In Record Expungement of Jones, 2025 S.D. 54, the Supreme Court of South...
No Appropriation Without Exclusive Control: Shoreline-Connected Canals Do Not Require Water Appropriation Permits under South Dakota Law

No Appropriation Without Exclusive Control: Shoreline-Connected Canals Do Not Require Water Appropriation Permits under South Dakota Law

Date: Sep 25, 2025
No Appropriation Without Exclusive Control: Shoreline-Connected Canals Do Not Require Water Appropriation Permits under South Dakota Law Case: McCook Lake Recreation Area v. Dakota Bay, LLC, 2025...
Waiver-by-Acceptance Applies Equally to Publicly Subsidized and Private Tenancies; “Acceptance” Is a Fact Question Assessed by the Totality of Circumstances

Waiver-by-Acceptance Applies Equally to Publicly Subsidized and Private Tenancies; “Acceptance” Is a Fact Question Assessed by the Totality of Circumstances

Date: Sep 25, 2025
Waiver-by-Acceptance Applies Equally to Publicly Subsidized and Private Tenancies; “Acceptance” Is a Fact Question Assessed by the Totality of Circumstances Introduction In Hook & Ladder Apartments,...
Two-Track Specificity for Restitution Challenges: Minnesota Supreme Court Requires Offenders to Specify “Item” versus “Amount” under Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(a) — State v. Seeman (2025)

Two-Track Specificity for Restitution Challenges: Minnesota Supreme Court Requires Offenders to Specify “Item” versus “Amount” under Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(a) — State v. Seeman (2025)

Date: Sep 25, 2025
Two-Track Specificity for Restitution Challenges: Minnesota Supreme Court Requires Offenders to Specify “Item” versus “Amount” under Minn. Stat. § 611A.045, subd. 3(a) Introduction In State of...
Beyond Reversal of Agency Orders: The Texas Supreme Court Narrows the Redundant‑Remedies Doctrine in Gonzalez v. Texas Medical Board

Beyond Reversal of Agency Orders: The Texas Supreme Court Narrows the Redundant‑Remedies Doctrine in Gonzalez v. Texas Medical Board

Date: Sep 25, 2025
Beyond Reversal of Agency Orders: The Texas Supreme Court Narrows the Redundant‑Remedies Doctrine in Gonzalez v. Texas Medical Board I. Introduction The Supreme Court of Texas’s decision in Reynaldo...
"Exceptional Services" Fees May Include Equipment Charges: Connecticut Supreme Court Recasts § 14-63-36c(c) as a Posting Requirement, Not a Labor-Only Cap

"Exceptional Services" Fees May Include Equipment Charges: Connecticut Supreme Court Recasts § 14-63-36c(c) as a Posting Requirement, Not a Labor-Only Cap

Date: Sep 24, 2025
"Exceptional Services" Fees May Include Equipment Charges: Connecticut Supreme Court Recasts § 14-63-36c(c) as a Posting Requirement, Not a Labor-Only Cap Introduction In Modzelewski's Towing &...
Deferred Felony Child Endangerment Plus Alcohol-Related Recidivism Warrants Actual Suspension Under RGDP Rule 7

Deferred Felony Child Endangerment Plus Alcohol-Related Recidivism Warrants Actual Suspension Under RGDP Rule 7

Date: Sep 24, 2025
Deferred Felony Child Endangerment Plus Alcohol-Related Recidivism Warrants Actual Suspension Under RGDP Rule 7 Case: STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA BAR ASSOCIATION v. GIES, 2025 OK 59 (Okla. Sept. 23, 2025)...
State v. Henderson: No Per Se Extreme Emotional Disturbance Instruction in Intimate‑Partner Homicides; Loss of Self‑Control Must Be Shown and Postcrime Evasion Undercuts the Defense

State v. Henderson: No Per Se Extreme Emotional Disturbance Instruction in Intimate‑Partner Homicides; Loss of Self‑Control Must Be Shown and Postcrime Evasion Undercuts the Defense

Date: Sep 24, 2025
State v. Henderson: No Per Se Extreme Emotional Disturbance Instruction in Intimate‑Partner Homicides; Loss of Self‑Control Must Be Shown and Postcrime Evasion Undercuts the Defense Introduction In...
Prospective-Only Enforcement of RESCTA’s “Large Load” Rule: No Third-Party Transmission “Extensions,” But Existing Service Remains Undisturbed

Prospective-Only Enforcement of RESCTA’s “Large Load” Rule: No Third-Party Transmission “Extensions,” But Existing Service Remains Undisturbed

Date: Sep 24, 2025
Prospective-Only Enforcement of RESCTA’s “Large Load” Rule: No Third-Party Transmission “Extensions,” But Existing Service Remains Undisturbed 1. Introduction In OKLAHOMA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE v....
Reasserting the “Light Most Favorable” Mandate and Jury Primacy for Extreme Emotional Disturbance Instructions: Justice Ecker’s Dissent in State v. Henderson

Reasserting the “Light Most Favorable” Mandate and Jury Primacy for Extreme Emotional Disturbance Instructions: Justice Ecker’s Dissent in State v. Henderson

Date: Sep 24, 2025
Reasserting the “Light Most Favorable” Mandate and Jury Primacy for Extreme Emotional Disturbance Instructions: Justice Ecker’s Dissent in State v. Henderson Introduction In State v. Henderson...
Credibility Over Formality: Verbal Light‑Duty Offers Do Not Automatically Terminate TTD; Deference to the Board of Review Controls under § 23‑4‑7a(e)

Credibility Over Formality: Verbal Light‑Duty Offers Do Not Automatically Terminate TTD; Deference to the Board of Review Controls under § 23‑4‑7a(e)

Date: Sep 24, 2025
Credibility Over Formality: Verbal Light‑Duty Offers Do Not Automatically Terminate TTD; Deference to the Board of Review Controls under § 23‑4‑7a(e) Introduction In Dainel Nicole Smith v. West...
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