Search
Filter Search
Chilutti v. Uber
Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated, without reaching merits, appellate decision finding state jury trial right requires a stricter standard than federal caselaw for when online arbitration agreements are enforceable against users who lack actual knowledge of the terms, finding the appellate court lacked jurisdiction
Opternative, Inc. v. South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners
South Carolina Supreme Court ruled a law prohibiting glasses and contact prescriptions based solely on online vision tests, without an in-person eye exam, did not violate telehealth business’s due process or equal protection rights
Commonwealth v. Kurtz
Pennsylvania Supreme Court held, in a split decision, that there was no enforceable expectation of privacy in Google searches of a victim's name and address
Michigan High Court Could Break New Ground in Limiting Excessive Sentences
Michigan could be the first state to rule that life-without-parole sentences for people convicted of “felony murder” are unconstitutional.
State v. Good Day Farm Arkansas
Arkansas Supreme Court held that a provision that voter-approved measures may be amended or repealed by a two-thirds vote of the legislature permits legislative changes to citizen-initiated constitutional amendments
Jake Mazeitis
Jake Mazeitis (he/him) was a law clerk on both the Colorado Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Who’s Hiring State Supreme Court Clerks?
State-by-state information to aid law students and young attorneys in securing a state clerkship.
2026 Abortion-Related Ballot Measures
Ballot measures continue to be a tool in the fight over abortion rights, with some states attempting to expand rights and others looking to shore up restrictions.
E.N. v. Kehoe
Missouri Supreme Court upheld state laws banning gender-affirming care for minors and Medicaid coverage for such care at any age, under state's equal protection, due process, and "gains of industry" clauses
Menzies v. Department of Corrections
Utah Supreme Court will consider challenge to the state's lethal injection and firing squad protocols as violating prohibitions against cruel and unusual punishment and treating incarcerated people with unnecessary rigor
