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

tenth-circuit-upholds-stringent-&amp Case Commentaries

No Third-Party Dissemination and Self-Imposed Decisions Do Not Create Article III Standing in FCRA Disputes

No Third-Party Dissemination and Self-Imposed Decisions Do Not Create Article III Standing in FCRA Disputes

Date: Sep 24, 2025
No Third-Party Dissemination and Self-Imposed Decisions Do Not Create Article III Standing in FCRA Disputes Introduction In Lashonda Peeples v. National Data Research, Inc. (d.b.a. Integrascan), No....
De Novo Review for Rule 59(J) “Clearly Erroneous” Motions and Limits on Using Video/Intoxication to Prove Contributory Negligence as a Matter of Law

De Novo Review for Rule 59(J) “Clearly Erroneous” Motions and Limits on Using Video/Intoxication to Prove Contributory Negligence as a Matter of Law

Date: Sep 16, 2025
De Novo Review for Rule 59(J) “Clearly Erroneous” Motions and Limits on Using Video/Intoxication to Prove Contributory Negligence as a Matter of Law Introduction In Indianapolis Public Transportation...
Lake v. State: Late-Disclosed Impeachment Evidence During Trial Is Not Brady “Suppression,” and Child-Witness Competency Turns on Mental Ability, Not Detailed Recall

Lake v. State: Late-Disclosed Impeachment Evidence During Trial Is Not Brady “Suppression,” and Child-Witness Competency Turns on Mental Ability, Not Detailed Recall

Date: Sep 13, 2025
Lake v. State: Late-Disclosed Impeachment Evidence During Trial Is Not Brady “Suppression,” and Child-Witness Competency Turns on Mental Ability, Not Detailed Recall Introduction In Justin Scott Lake...
First Circuit Clarifies INA Parole Authority: “Case‑by‑Case” Limits Grants, Not Termination; DHS May Categorically End and Revoke Parole Programs

First Circuit Clarifies INA Parole Authority: “Case‑by‑Case” Limits Grants, Not Termination; DHS May Categorically End and Revoke Parole Programs

Date: Sep 13, 2025
First Circuit Clarifies INA Parole Authority: “Case‑by‑Case” Limits Grants, Not Termination; DHS May Categorically End and Revoke Parole Programs Introduction Doe v. Noem addresses the scope of the...
Unsworn Statements Cannot Create Fact Disputes, But May Prompt Rule 56(e) Cure Orders: Third Circuit’s Precedential Clarification in Lauria v. Lieb

Unsworn Statements Cannot Create Fact Disputes, But May Prompt Rule 56(e) Cure Orders: Third Circuit’s Precedential Clarification in Lauria v. Lieb

Date: Sep 13, 2025
Unsworn Statements Cannot Create Fact Disputes, But May Prompt Rule 56(e) Cure Orders: The Third Circuit’s Precedential Clarification in Lauria v. Lieb Introduction In a precedential opinion, the...
United States v. Mosley: Post-Esteras boundaries on revocation sentencing—no § 3553(a)(2)(A) retribution, “ballpark” deference, and unified justification for prison and supervision

United States v. Mosley: Post-Esteras boundaries on revocation sentencing—no § 3553(a)(2)(A) retribution, “ballpark” deference, and unified justification for prison and supervision

Date: Sep 13, 2025
United States v. Mosley: Post-Esteras boundaries on revocation sentencing—no § 3553(a)(2)(A) retribution, “ballpark” deference, and unified justification for prison and supervision Introduction In...
Lascivious Exhibition Instructions May Include Defendant’s Intent; Sentence Affirmed via Assumed-Error Harmlessness — United States v. Tatum (4th Cir. 2025)

Lascivious Exhibition Instructions May Include Defendant’s Intent; Sentence Affirmed via Assumed-Error Harmlessness — United States v. Tatum (4th Cir. 2025)

Date: Sep 13, 2025
Lascivious Exhibition Instructions May Include Defendant’s Intent; Sentence Affirmed via Assumed-Error Harmlessness — United States v. Tatum (4th Cir. 2025) Note: This is an unpublished Fourth...
No Shortcuts to Finality: Rule 41(a) Cannot Cure the Lack of Rule 54(b) Certification for Partial Summary Judgment

No Shortcuts to Finality: Rule 41(a) Cannot Cure the Lack of Rule 54(b) Certification for Partial Summary Judgment

Date: Sep 13, 2025
No Shortcuts to Finality: Rule 41(a) Cannot Cure the Lack of Rule 54(b) Certification for Partial Summary Judgment Introduction In CMYK Enterprises, Inc. v. Advanced Print Technologies, LLC, the...
Burkert: Two-Year Suspension and Full Restitution as a Condition to File for Reinstatement in Law‑Firm Fee Diversion Cases

Burkert: Two-Year Suspension and Full Restitution as a Condition to File for Reinstatement in Law‑Firm Fee Diversion Cases

Date: Sep 13, 2025
Burkert: Two-Year Suspension and Full Restitution as a Condition to File for Reinstatement in Law‑Firm Fee Diversion Cases Introduction In Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Matthew V. Burkert, 2025 WI...
Hunter After Diaz: Nebraska Authorizes Cumulative Punishments in Successive Prosecutions When Later-Occurring Facts Complete the Greater Offense

Hunter After Diaz: Nebraska Authorizes Cumulative Punishments in Successive Prosecutions When Later-Occurring Facts Complete the Greater Offense

Date: Sep 13, 2025
Hunter After Diaz: Nebraska Authorizes Cumulative Punishments in Successive Prosecutions When Later-Occurring Facts Complete the Greater Offense Introduction In State v. Lewis, 319 Neb. 847 (Neb....
First Circuit Reaffirms Strict Raise‑or‑Waive in Collateral Estoppel Disputes: Shabshelowitz v. Rhode Island Department of Public Safety

First Circuit Reaffirms Strict Raise‑or‑Waive in Collateral Estoppel Disputes: Shabshelowitz v. Rhode Island Department of Public Safety

Date: Sep 13, 2025
First Circuit Reaffirms Strict Raise‑or‑Waive in Collateral Estoppel Disputes: Shabshelowitz v. Rhode Island Department of Public Safety Introduction This First Circuit decision underscores a...
Extracurricular Expenses Are Incidents of Support Beyond Worksheet 1: Scott v. Scott (Neb. 2025)

Extracurricular Expenses Are Incidents of Support Beyond Worksheet 1: Scott v. Scott (Neb. 2025)

Date: Sep 13, 2025
Extracurricular Expenses Are Incidents of Support Beyond Worksheet 1: Scott v. Scott (Neb. 2025) Introduction Scott v. Scott, 319 Neb. 877 (Sept. 12, 2025), is a comprehensive opinion from the...
“Substantial Opportunity to Use” Test for Late-Disclosed Evidence: Nevada Clarifies Prejudice and Continuance Cures in Lee v. State

“Substantial Opportunity to Use” Test for Late-Disclosed Evidence: Nevada Clarifies Prejudice and Continuance Cures in Lee v. State

Date: Sep 13, 2025
“Substantial Opportunity to Use” Test for Late-Disclosed Evidence: Nevada Clarifies Prejudice and Continuance Cures in Lee v. State Introduction In Lee (Michael) v. State, No. 85004 (Nev. Sept. 12,...
Federal Definition of “Conviction” Controls § 2251(e); § 2260A’s Ten-Year Consecutive Term Stacks Without Double-Jeopardy Violation; Rule 413 Reaches Enticement Attempts — Commentary on United States v. Baker (6th Cir. 2025)

Federal Definition of “Conviction” Controls § 2251(e); § 2260A’s Ten-Year Consecutive Term Stacks Without Double-Jeopardy Violation; Rule 413 Reaches Enticement Attempts — Commentary on United States v. Baker (6th Cir. 2025)

Date: Sep 13, 2025
Federal Definition of “Conviction” Controls § 2251(e); § 2260A’s Ten-Year Consecutive Term Stacks Without Double-Jeopardy Violation; Rule 413 Reaches Enticement Attempts — Commentary on United States...
Complete Restitution as a Precondition to Reinstatement and a Two-Year Benchmark for Law‑Firm Fee Diversion: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Burkert (2025 WI 44)

Complete Restitution as a Precondition to Reinstatement and a Two-Year Benchmark for Law‑Firm Fee Diversion: Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Burkert (2025 WI 44)

Date: Sep 13, 2025
Complete Restitution as a Precondition to Reinstatement and a Two-Year Benchmark for Law‑Firm Fee Diversion Office of Lawyer Regulation v. Matthew V. Burkert, 2025 WI 44 (Wisconsin Supreme Court,...
Notice, Not Mens Rea: Hawaiʻi Supreme Court Holds Indictments Need Not Plead a State of Mind for HRS § 706-660.1 Firearm Sentencing Enhancements

Notice, Not Mens Rea: Hawaiʻi Supreme Court Holds Indictments Need Not Plead a State of Mind for HRS § 706-660.1 Firearm Sentencing Enhancements

Date: Sep 13, 2025
Notice, Not Mens Rea: Hawaiʻi Supreme Court Holds Indictments Need Not Plead a State of Mind for HRS § 706-660.1 Firearm Sentencing Enhancements Case: State v. Smith, SCWC-21-0000504 Court: Supreme...
No Qualified Immunity for Malicious Prosecution Built on Manufactured Evidence: Third Circuit’s Evans v. City of Newark

No Qualified Immunity for Malicious Prosecution Built on Manufactured Evidence: Third Circuit’s Evans v. City of Newark

Date: Sep 13, 2025
No Qualified Immunity for Malicious Prosecution Built on Manufactured Evidence Evans v. City of Newark (3d Cir. Sept. 12, 2025) Introduction In a precedential decision, the United States Court of...
Second Circuit Reaffirms Braswell’s Act‑of‑Production Bar at Trial and Imposes Single‑Recovery Rule for Co‑Conspirator Forfeiture Under § 981

Second Circuit Reaffirms Braswell’s Act‑of‑Production Bar at Trial and Imposes Single‑Recovery Rule for Co‑Conspirator Forfeiture Under § 981

Date: Sep 13, 2025
Second Circuit Reaffirms Braswell’s Act‑of‑Production Bar at Trial and Imposes Single‑Recovery Rule for Co‑Conspirator Forfeiture Under § 981 Introduction United States v. Costanzo is a Second...
No “Indirect Cleansing” of Discriminatory Statutes: Fourth Circuit Invalidates North Carolina’s Felony‑Voting Crime and Clarifies Mootness After Prospective Amendments

No “Indirect Cleansing” of Discriminatory Statutes: Fourth Circuit Invalidates North Carolina’s Felony‑Voting Crime and Clarifies Mootness After Prospective Amendments

Date: Sep 13, 2025
No “Indirect Cleansing” of Discriminatory Statutes: Fourth Circuit Invalidates North Carolina’s Felony‑Voting Crime and Clarifies Mootness After Prospective Amendments Introduction In A. Philip...
Sampson Limited: Affirmative Defenses Must Be Evidenced at Summary Judgment; Hayden Foreclosure Standard Reaffirmed

Sampson Limited: Affirmative Defenses Must Be Evidenced at Summary Judgment; Hayden Foreclosure Standard Reaffirmed

Date: Sep 13, 2025
Sampson Limited: Affirmative Defenses Must Be Evidenced at Summary Judgment; Hayden Foreclosure Standard Reaffirmed Introduction In Russell A. Collins and Stacey D. Collins v. West Alabama Bank &...
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