Search
Filter Search
Crenshaw ex rel. Crenshaw v. Sonic Drive In of Greenville, Inc.
Held that the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusive-remedy provisions did not violate the Alabama Constitution's clause that every injured person has the right to a remedy
State v. Mumford
Dissent would have held that a K-9 unit's brief entry into the cabin of a vehicle duting a lawful traffic stop constituted an unconstitutional search under both the federal and state search-and-seizure provisions
Jackson v. State
Dissent would have granted defendant's petition to transfer jurisdiction and found that the State had not sufficiently shown the reasonableness of the officer's search of the defendant's locked trunk based only on the smell of burnt marijuana coming from the passenger compartment, as required under the Indiana Constitution's search-and-seizure standard
Arizona Supreme Court Grapples with Challenge to “Dark Money” Disclosure Law
Voters overwhelmingly approved the law in 2022 to shed light on anonymous campaign spending from large donors.
Montenegro v. Fontes
WIll consider whether portion of campaign-disclosure law that says rules and enforcement activity by a commission charged with implementing the law are not subject to limit by any "legislative governmental body" -- which the trial court found to violate separation of powers principles -- is severable from the rest of the law. Will also consider whether legislators have standing to claim that the law's grant of general implementing power to the commission interferes with legislative power.
O’Neil v. Gianforte
Held that the state constitution’s protection of the public’s “right to know” allows for a limited gubernatorial privilege exception if the governor meets the “high bar of demonstrating that the information is essential to carrying out a constitutional duty and that its disclosure would chill future candor.” Also held that the process for determining whether a particular document otherwise subject to the "right to know" may be shielded by gubernatorial privilege should be the same as for other "candor privileges" (e.g., attorney-client, doctor-patient), including in camera review by the trial court to determine the proper scope. Remanded to the district court to conduct such review with respect to the requested agency documents.
State v. Waldner
Held that privacy right in the state's victims'-rights amendment (known, along with versions in other states, as "Marsy's Law") is not self-executing, but a statute providing for appeal of certain orders affecting "substantial rights" may be used by crime victims to appeal denials of motions to quash discovery to enforce that privacy right. Also held that the right to privacy in the amendment is not an absolute protection from discovery requests and must be balanced against defendants' due process rights. For a discovery request to be upheld, a defendant must establish the relevance, admissibility, and specificity of the information sought.
Planned Parenthood v. Urmanski
Will determine whether a 175-year old law, if interpreted in separate case Kaul v. Urmanski to ban abortions except to save the mother's life, violates the woman's and her physician's inherent rights to life and liberty and equal protection under the state constitution. Planned Parenthood argues that the inherent rights clause protects a person’s right to bodily integrity and autonomy, including the decision of whether and when to have a child.
City of Fargo v. State
Held that a 2023 statute barring localities from enacting ordinances related to the purchase, sale, or possession of firearms and ammunitions that are more restrictive than state law preempted the city of Fargo’s limits on such sales and did not violate state constitutional “home rule” clauses as applied to Fargo’s restrictions.
