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.
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:
Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
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.
Fees-on-Fees Are Not Automatic: Trial Courts May Deny Post-Settlement Fee-Litigation Time as Unreasonable Under Fee-Shifting Statutes 1. Introduction Butcher v. General R.V. Center, Inc. (Va. Apr....
Edwards Is Not a Permanent Taint: Post-Invocation Statements Are Admissible After Interrogation Ends, the Suspect Reinitiates, and a Knowing Waiver Follows I. Introduction Commonwealth v. Fayne...
Commonwealth v. Richerson: Totality-of-the-Evidence Controls DUI Sufficiency; Appellate Courts May Not Reweigh Body-Cam “Inconsistencies” or Invent Innocent Hypotheses 1. Introduction In Commonwealth...
Near-Fatal Overdose as “Physical Illness or Other Cause” Rendering an Adult “Vulnerable” Under Code § 18.2-369(C) 1. Introduction In Fergeson v. Commonwealth (ORDER) (Va. Apr. 23, 2026), the Supreme...
Code § 19.2-56(B) Applies as a Unified “Place of Abode” Rule: Copy-of-Warrant/Affidavit Duty Does Not Extend to Commercial Searches 1. Introduction Case: Blow v. Commonwealth (Supreme Court of...
Traffic-Stop “Mission” Includes Scene Control When Driver Cannot Lawfully Depart: Brief Drug/Weapon Questions Do Not Prolong the Stop Introduction In Commonwealth v. Knight-Walker (Va. Apr. 16,...
Market-Familiar Drug Dealer Inference: Knowledge of Fentanyl in a Heroin/Fentanyl Mixture & Limits of the “Reasonable Hypothesis of Innocence” I. Introduction In Cuffee v. Commonwealth (Supreme Court...
Stevens v. Jurnigan: Appellate Deference to Circuit Court Factfinding on Evidentiary Pleas in Bar I. Introduction Case: Stevens v. Jurnigan (Supreme Court of Virginia, Apr. 9, 2026). Parties:...
Nonmandatory Child-Abuse Reporters Receive § 63.2-1512 Immunity Only for Complaints Made “Pursuant to” § 63.2-1510 (Not to Law Enforcement Alone) Introduction In Cupp v. Delta Air Lines, Inc....
Indefinite-Form Probation Clauses Are Not Facially Invalid When Statutory Caps Apply: Commonwealth v. Moncrea Supreme Court of Virginia (Apr. 2, 2026) — Record No. 240844 1. Introduction In...
Lee v. Virginia State Bar: Harmless-Error Cure for Alleged Bar Certification Irregularities After De Novo Discipline Trial Introduction In Lee v. Virginia State Bar (Va. Mar. 19, 2026), the Supreme...
Clarifying “Promptly” on Remand and Ending § 8.01-626 Interlocutory Jurisdiction After a Stay-Only Order Introduction Koski v. Republican National Committee (ORDER) is an order of the Supreme Court...
“Just Cause” Under Code § 63.2-1202(H) Is a Discretionary, Totality-of-Circumstances Standard (Not a Per Se Rule) Even When a No-Contact Order Exists I. Introduction In Perkins v. Howington (Va. Mar....
Koski v. Republican National Committee: Broad Election-Enjoining TRO Treated as Appealable Preliminary Injunction; Scott v. James Prudential Bar on Enjoining Referenda 1. Introduction In Koski v....
Garofalo v. Di Vincenzo: Virginia Defines “Evident Partiality” as Objectively Obvious Bias and Holds Mere Nondisclosure Is Not Automatically Vacatur I. Introduction Case: Garofalo v. Di Vincenzo...
Corporate Derivative Sovereign Immunity Requires a James v. Jane Fact Inquiry (No Automatic Immunity for Hospital-Authority Subsidiaries) I. Introduction In Sentara Medical Group v. Klena (Supreme...
Transmission CPCNs in Virginia: “Consideration” Means Reflection, Not Substantial-Accord Findings; Staff Verification Suffices Under Code § 56-46.1(B) Lansdowne Conservancy v. SCCC, Supreme Court of...
Loudoun County v. State Corporation Commission: “Consideration,” Not “Substantial Accord,” Governs Local Plans in CPCNs; Undergrounding May Be Rejected as Infeasible Based on Cost, Engineering, and...
“Consideration” Means Reflection: SCC Need Not Make Local “Substantial Accord” Findings When Granting Transmission-Line CPCNs Under Code § 56-46.1 I. Introduction In Loudoun County v. SCC...