Search
Filter Search
State v. Sutterfield
Ruled that arrest by police officer for completed misdemeanor that occurred outside the officer's presence did not violate search and seizure clause where officer was assisting a private individual conducting a citizen arrest
Metcalfe v. State
Ruled repeal of statutory right of reinstatement unconstitutionally impaired or diminished an accrued benefit of the state employee retirement system
Dulin v. State
Dissent would have held that when the total court costs imposed on a defendant do not plainly exceed the cost to the state of litigating the case, there is no violation of separation of powers
State v. Lopez-Carrera
Dissent wrote that State's sovereign power and victims' rights require that statute limiting pretrial detention permit detention of a defendant noncitizen when removal is certain and imminent
State Courts Diverge on Allowing Civil Claims for Child Sexual Abuse Outside Statute of Limitations
Due process challenges by schools and churches to laws reviving civil child sexual abuse claims are pending before the North Carolina and Kentucky supreme courts.
Z.W.E. v. L.B. (Ex parte Z.W.E.)
Concurrence would have ruled that parentage statute’s definition of “child” should be interpreted to include unborn children as constitution specifically protects their rights
In re Humphrey
Ruled equal protection and substantive due process require court to consider financial ability to post bail and whether less restrictive alternatives to detention could satisfy government’s interests
Reagan v. Idaho Transportation Department
Ruled that statute authorizing warrantless arrest for driving under the influence, even if the officer did not witness the offense, violates protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
Gomersall v. St. Luke's Regional Medican Center, Ltd.
Ruled that statute governing time limitation for minor children to bring professional malpractice actions did not violate due process, equal protection, or right to access courts
Ortiz v. State
Concurrence wrote that prosecution's summation argument that the defendant tailored his testimony after listening to the evidence at trial violates the defendant's right to be present at trial
