Search
Filter Search
Fisher v. Harter
Ruled that a statute granting peremptory grounds to state legislators to obtain continuances or extensions of fixed court dates was unconstitutional on its face under the separation-of-powers doctrine
In re The Thirtieth County Investigating Grand Jury
Ruled that supervising judge's failure to give notice and opportunity to respond to all named, unindicted individuals criticized in a proposed investigating grand jury report violated the unindicted individuals' constitutional rights to due process and reputation
State v. McGee
Held that the attenuation doctrine under the Washington Constitution did not apply to allow the admission of evidence discovered from a police report of a prior illegal stop
In re Benson
Dissent would have held that requiring counsel at all stages of the civil commitment process is central to the constitutionality of the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act: Sexually Dangerous Persons and Sexual Psychopathic Personalities
Johnson & Johnson v. Wilson
Held that under New Mexico's governing statutory framework, the Attorney General's authority to access executive agency materials for discovery purposes was fairly and necessarily implied and incurred no resulting constitutional violation
Walker v. Chasteen
Held that the refund claim of unconstitutionally added-on filing fees for mortgage foreclosure complaints was a retrospective monetary award to redress a past wrong, which fell under the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, not the circuit court
Elliott v. City of College Station
State supreme court will determine if courts can resolve whether the state constitution’s clause preserving a “republican form of government” protects citizens from being subject to city regulations when they cannot vote in city elections.
Anti-Abortion Strategies Center on 19th Century Federal Law
Activists hope to set up a clash between the Comstock Act and state laws protecting abortion.
McGill v. Thurston
Held that proposed constitutional amendment relating to county casino licenses was not unconstitutionally misleading as it appeared on the ballot
State v. Hoffman
Held that a defendant's un-Mirandized statements made in response to a police officer's words "normally attendant to arrest and custody" were not admissible if the officer's statements "were reasonably likely to lead to an incriminating response," thus constituting an "interrogation" under art. 1 sec. 10 of the Hawaii Constitution
