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

1st Circuit Case Commentaries

Precedent: A Motion to Dissolve Cannot Backdoor an Untimely Appeal; Dissolution Requires a Significant Intervening Change in Law or Fact (CoC/THUD)

Precedent: A Motion to Dissolve Cannot Backdoor an Untimely Appeal; Dissolution Requires a Significant Intervening Change in Law or Fact (CoC/THUD)

Date: Apr 4, 2026
Precedent: A Motion to Dissolve Cannot Backdoor an Untimely Appeal; Dissolution Requires a Significant Intervening Change in Law or Fact (CoC/THUD) I. Introduction In National Alliance to End...
Appropriations Changes Do Not Reopen Unappealed Preliminary Injunctions: Dissolution Requires a Significant Intervening Change in Law or Fact

Appropriations Changes Do Not Reopen Unappealed Preliminary Injunctions: Dissolution Requires a Significant Intervening Change in Law or Fact

Date: Apr 4, 2026
Appropriations Changes Do Not Reopen Unappealed Preliminary Injunctions: Dissolution Requires a Significant Intervening Change in Law or Fact 1. Introduction State of Washington v. U.S. Department of...
United States v. Ponzo: Bribe-Tainted Contract Revenues Are “Proceeds” Forfeitable Under § 981’s But-For Nexus; Rule 32.2 Timing Missteps Can Be Harmless

United States v. Ponzo: Bribe-Tainted Contract Revenues Are “Proceeds” Forfeitable Under § 981’s But-For Nexus; Rule 32.2 Timing Missteps Can Be Harmless

Date: Apr 4, 2026
United States v. Ponzo: Bribe-Tainted Contract Revenues Are “Proceeds” Forfeitable Under § 981’s But-For Nexus; Rule 32.2 Timing Missteps Can Be Harmless 1. Introduction In United States v. Ponzo...
United States v. Ponzo: Bribe-Tainted Contract Profits Are Forfeitable “Proceeds” (Even if Self-Generated) and § 1001 Convictions Trigger Obstruction Enhancements

United States v. Ponzo: Bribe-Tainted Contract Profits Are Forfeitable “Proceeds” (Even if Self-Generated) and § 1001 Convictions Trigger Obstruction Enhancements

Date: Apr 4, 2026
United States v. Ponzo: Bribe-Tainted Contract Profits Are Forfeitable “Proceeds” (Even if Self-Generated) and § 1001 Convictions Trigger Obstruction Enhancements 1. Introduction In United States v....
Bribery-Tainted Contract Profits Are Forfeitable “Proceeds” Under § 981(a)(2)(B) Using a But-For Nexus Even If the Defendant “Generated” the Customers

Bribery-Tainted Contract Profits Are Forfeitable “Proceeds” Under § 981(a)(2)(B) Using a But-For Nexus Even If the Defendant “Generated” the Customers

Date: Apr 4, 2026
Bribery-Tainted Contract Profits Are Forfeitable “Proceeds” Under § 981(a)(2)(B) Using a But-For Nexus Even If the Defendant “Generated” the Customers Case: United States v. Ponzo Court: Court of...
United States v. Roache — Indicia-of-Reliability Standard for Double-Hearsay Co-Conspirator Statements Supporting U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1) Firearm-Count Enhancements

United States v. Roache — Indicia-of-Reliability Standard for Double-Hearsay Co-Conspirator Statements Supporting U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1) Firearm-Count Enhancements

Date: Apr 3, 2026
Indicia-of-Reliability Standard for Double-Hearsay Co-Conspirator Statements Supporting U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1) Firearm-Count Enhancements Case: United States v. Roache (1st Cir. Mar. 30, 2026) Court:...
Pleading Disability Discrimination Under ACA § 1557 for Obesity-Related Coverage Exclusions Requires “Fit” and “Meaningful Access” Facts (Holland v. Elevance Health, Inc.)

Pleading Disability Discrimination Under ACA § 1557 for Obesity-Related Coverage Exclusions Requires “Fit” and “Meaningful Access” Facts (Holland v. Elevance Health, Inc.)

Date: Mar 29, 2026
Pleading Disability Discrimination Under ACA § 1557 for Obesity-Related Coverage Exclusions Requires “Fit” and “Meaningful Access” Facts Case: Holland v. Elevance Health, Inc. Court: U.S. Court of...
Form-Over-Substance Rejected: A Pending Rule 12(b)(6) Motion May Be Applied to a Later Amended Complaint When the Amendment Does Not Materially Change the Issues

Form-Over-Substance Rejected: A Pending Rule 12(b)(6) Motion May Be Applied to a Later Amended Complaint When the Amendment Does Not Materially Change the Issues

Date: Mar 29, 2026
Form-Over-Substance Rejected: A Pending Rule 12(b)(6) Motion May Be Applied to a Later Amended Complaint When the Amendment Does Not Materially Change the Issues Case: Kendell Seafood Imports, Inc....
Urizar-Mota v. United States: Individualized FTCA Presentment for Derivative Consortium Claims and Evidence-Based Limits on Rhode Island Homemaker Damages

Urizar-Mota v. United States: Individualized FTCA Presentment for Derivative Consortium Claims and Evidence-Based Limits on Rhode Island Homemaker Damages

Date: Mar 29, 2026
Urizar-Mota v. United States: Individualized FTCA Presentment for Derivative Consortium Claims and Evidence-Based Limits on Rhode Island Homemaker Damages Court: United States Court of Appeals for...
Post-Janus Declaratory Relief Is Moot Once Dues Deductions End and Defendants Concede Error: Limits of Voluntary Cessation

Post-Janus Declaratory Relief Is Moot Once Dues Deductions End and Defendants Concede Error: Limits of Voluntary Cessation

Date: Mar 27, 2026
Post-Janus Declaratory Relief Is Moot Once Dues Deductions End and Defendants Concede Error: Limits of Voluntary Cessation 1. Introduction In Ramos Ramos v. Jordan-Conde (1st Cir. Mar. 25, 2026),...
Manzo v. Wohlstadter: Securities-Fraud and Tort Claims “Arise Out of” Promissory Notes When the Notes Are the Security, the Misrepresentation Vehicle, and the Source of Loss—Triggering Delaware-Exclusive Forum Clauses

Manzo v. Wohlstadter: Securities-Fraud and Tort Claims “Arise Out of” Promissory Notes When the Notes Are the Security, the Misrepresentation Vehicle, and the Source of Loss—Triggering Delaware-Exclusive Forum Clauses

Date: Mar 27, 2026
Manzo v. Wohlstadter: Securities-Fraud and Tort Claims “Arise Out of” Promissory Notes When the Notes Are the Security, the Misrepresentation Vehicle, and the Source of Loss—Triggering...
Retaliation Causation Cannot Run Backward: Post-Ultimatum Accommodation or FMLA Activity Cannot Create a Nexus to Termination

Retaliation Causation Cannot Run Backward: Post-Ultimatum Accommodation or FMLA Activity Cannot Create a Nexus to Termination

Date: Mar 26, 2026
Retaliation Causation Cannot Run Backward: Post-Ultimatum Accommodation or FMLA Activity Cannot Create a Nexus to Termination Introduction In Harris v. National Grid USA Service Company, Inc. (1st...
Trade-Secret “Ownership” Limits for Third-Party Deal Data and Non-Secret Acquisition Strategy: ZipBy USA LLC v. Parzych (1st Cir. 2026)

Trade-Secret “Ownership” Limits for Third-Party Deal Data and Non-Secret Acquisition Strategy: ZipBy USA LLC v. Parzych (1st Cir. 2026)

Date: Mar 24, 2026
Trade-Secret “Ownership” Limits for Third-Party Deal Data and Non-Secret Acquisition Strategy: ZipBy USA LLC v. Parzych (1st Cir. 2026) Court: United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit...
Post-Remand Petrozziello Challenges: Deference, Harmless Error, and Plain-Error Waiver for Unpreserved Statement-Specific Attacks

Post-Remand Petrozziello Challenges: Deference, Harmless Error, and Plain-Error Waiver for Unpreserved Statement-Specific Attacks

Date: Mar 24, 2026
Post-Remand Petrozziello Challenges: Deference, Harmless Error, and Plain-Error Waiver for Unpreserved Statement-Specific Attacks 1. Introduction United States v. Quinones-Santiago (1st Cir. Mar. 20,...
Hellman v. Massachusetts DESE — Pierce Parental-Choice Rights Do Not Guarantee On-Site, State-Funded Special Education at Private Schools

Hellman v. Massachusetts DESE — Pierce Parental-Choice Rights Do Not Guarantee On-Site, State-Funded Special Education at Private Schools

Date: Mar 24, 2026
Pierce Parental-Choice Rights Do Not Guarantee On-Site, State-Funded Special Education at Private Schools Case: Hellman v. Mass Dep't of Elementary and Secondary Education (1st Cir. Mar. 20, 2026)...
United States v. Millán-Machuca (1st Cir. 2026) Commentary

United States v. Millán-Machuca (1st Cir. 2026) Commentary

Date: Mar 24, 2026
Post-Remand Petrozziello Review: Global Coconspirator Findings, Harmless-Error Backstops, and Waiver of Unargued Plain Error 1. Introduction In United States v. Millán-Machuca (Nos. 20-1275, 20-1276,...
United States v. Rosario-Orangel (1st Cir. 2026) — Overwhelming Evidence Defeats Cumulative-Error Relief Even Assuming Multiple Petrozziello Misadmissions

United States v. Rosario-Orangel (1st Cir. 2026) — Overwhelming Evidence Defeats Cumulative-Error Relief Even Assuming Multiple Petrozziello Misadmissions

Date: Mar 24, 2026
Overwhelming Evidence Defeats Cumulative-Error Relief Even Assuming Multiple Petrozziello Misadmissions Case: United States v. Rosario-Orangel (consolidated Nos. 20-1275, 20-1276, 20-1283) Court:...
DTSA “Ownership” Limits for Due-Diligence Disclosures and No Trade-Secret Protection for a Disclosed “Decision-to-Pass” Strategy

DTSA “Ownership” Limits for Due-Diligence Disclosures and No Trade-Secret Protection for a Disclosed “Decision-to-Pass” Strategy

Date: Mar 24, 2026
DTSA “Ownership” Limits for Due-Diligence Disclosures and No Trade-Secret Protection for a Disclosed “Decision-to-Pass” Strategy I. Introduction ZipBy USA LLC v. Parzych (1st Cir. Mar. 19, 2026)...
DTSA/Massachusetts Trade-Secret “Ownership” Requires Control of Secrecy: A Buyer’s NDA Access to a Target’s Deal Data Does Not Create a Misappropriation Claim

DTSA/Massachusetts Trade-Secret “Ownership” Requires Control of Secrecy: A Buyer’s NDA Access to a Target’s Deal Data Does Not Create a Misappropriation Claim

Date: Mar 24, 2026
DTSA/Massachusetts Trade-Secret “Ownership” Requires Control of Secrecy: A Buyer’s NDA Access to a Target’s Deal Data Does Not Create a Misappropriation Claim Case: ZipBy USA LLC v. Parzych (1st Cir....
Hodzic v. Bondi: Clarifying the Non-Reviewability of Sua Sponte Reopening Absent Colorable Legal/Constitutional Error

Hodzic v. Bondi: Clarifying the Non-Reviewability of Sua Sponte Reopening Absent Colorable Legal/Constitutional Error

Date: Mar 24, 2026
Hodzic v. Bondi: Clarifying the Non-Reviewability of Sua Sponte Reopening Absent Colorable Legal/Constitutional Error 1. Introduction In Hodzic v. Bondi (1st Cir. Mar. 19, 2026), Edina and Redzo...
Previous   Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo
  • Watch Casemine overview Videos

Company

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Careers
  • FAQs
  • Columns
  • Contact Us

Help

  • Pricing
  • Help & Support
  • Features
  • Workflow
  • Campus Connect Fellow Program
  • 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