Search
Filter Search
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
Markwell v. Cooke
Ruled unintelligible sounds generated by computers to read simultaneously portions of a bill on Senate floor violated constitution’s reading requirement
Siebert v. Okun
Ruled that cap on damages in medical malpractice statute did not violate right to trial by jury because the damages cap did not invade the fact-finding province of the jury
Duke v. State
Dissent wrote that if a defendant declines representation by a public defender, due process and right to counsel do not obligate indigent defense agency to provide funding for ancillary defense services
Thurston v. Safe Surgery Arkansas
Upheld preliminary injunction enjoining statute’s background check requirements on paid canvassers as unconstitutionally impairing initiative and referendum rights
Baddourah v. McMaster
Ruled that governor could suspend city councilman following domestic violence charges because the legislator exception to the suspension power refers to state legislators and the indictment charged a crime of moral turpitude
Woods v. Seattle's Union Gospel Mission
Ruled that employment discrimination statute exempting religious nonprofits from the definition of "employer" does not violate clause prohibiting the unequal granting of privileges and immunities
