Search
Filter Search
People v. Taylor; People v. Czarnecki
Michigan Supreme Court held that mandatory life-without-parole sentences violate the state constitution’s protection against “cruel or unusual” punishment for anyone under age 21 at the time of the offense. The decision extends the court’s 2022 ruling in People v. Parks that such sentences are unconstitutional for those 18 or under.
Boline v. JKC Trucking
Held that impecuniosity following an award of sanctions did not violate the open courts provision of state constitution, which guarantees a right to access state courts
McNabb v. Harrison
Held that the state constitution requires a candidate running for municipal judgeship to be a resident of the same municipality to which he will be assigned, both at time of the election and for one year prior
State v. Mercedes
Held that officers were not required to administer warnings pursuant to article I section 7 of the Washington constitution as interpreted by prior caselaw -- informing individuals of their right to refuse, limit, or revoke consent -- prior to the warrantless consensual entries onto the defendant's outdoor property for investigative purposes
Simon v. Demuth
Ruled that the quorum clause in Article IV, Section 13, of the Minnesota Constitution requires a majority of the total number of seats of which each house may consist to constitute a quorum, without reference to vacancies
Gonzales v. Markland
Held that the use of a jury district for manslaughter trial comprised of two counties did not violate the “county or district” terminology of art. 6, § 7 of the South Dakota Constitution, granting the right to a trial by a “jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed”
State Court Oral Arguments to Watch for in September
Issues on the dockets include charter schools, minimum wage for live-in caregivers, online arbitration agreements, and a controversial handwritten date requirement for mail ballots.
The Power of State Constitutional Rights
Judges, practitioners, and scholars explore critical issues facing state courts and constitutions.
N'Da v. Hybl
Nebraska Supreme Court held that statutory requirement that applicant seeking certificate to provide nonemergency medical transport must show the proposed service is required by "public convenience and necessity" does not facially violate state constitutional due process or bans on "special laws" or laws granting "special privileges and immunities." Also held that that the Nebraska Constitution's due process and equal protection clauses are coextensive with their federal equivalents, so federal rational basis review applies to substantive due process challenges to economic regulations, not the heightened standard the court had applied in a line of cases from the early 20th century.
Rivas v. Brownell
Held that a statute-of-limitations tolling provision in a supervisory order issued in response to the Covid-19 pandemic did not violate the separation of powers nor the affected drivers' rights to procedural due process
