Search
Filter Search
Commonwealth v. Shepherd
Held that the state's right to equal protection did not require the retroactive application of a new rule requiring proof of actual malice for felony murder
Six Brothers, Inc. v. Town of Brookline
Upheld local law that would gradually make it illegal to sell tobacco products within town limits; held regulation is not preempted by state tobacco regulations and does not violate equal protection
Nestor M. Davidson
Nestor M. Davidson is the Albert A. Walsh Professor of Real Estate, Land Use, and Property Law, Fordham Law School.
Will Courts Continue to Favor State Control Over Home Rule?
Constitutional amendments giving cities greater authority over local policy have repeatedly met resistance by state courts over the last century.
Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region v. Knodell
Concurrence would have held that the state constitution unambiguously exempts appropriation bills from the single subject requirement and was therefore inapplicable to the bill at issue, which professed to eliminate Medicaid funding for abortion providers and their affiliates
Schaad v. Alder
Ruled that an income tax statute providing that, during the COVID-19 pandemic, workers would be taxed by municipality that was their principal place of work rather than by municipality where they actually performed their work, did not violate state's Home Rule Amendment
BABE VOTE v. McGrane
Held that laws prohibiting the use of student IDs for voting purposes did not violate the state constitution
Native Village of Kwinhagak v. State, Department of Health & Social Services
Held that both the State's delay in notifying other parties to “child in need of aid” case of child's admission to hospital, as well as the 46-day delay between the child's hospitalization and the hearing on whether such hospitalization was justified, violated procedural due process
In re Noem
Held that the contract clause of the state constitution prohibits a legislator, or former legislator within one year following the expiration of the legislator's term, from being interested, directly or indirectly, in contracts that are authorized by laws passed during the legislator's term, but does not categorically prohibit all contracts between legislators and the State
Zurawski v. Texas
Held that the language in state abortion laws allowing abortions when the life of the mother is threatened is adequate to protect the health of the patient and constitutional. Plaintiffs claimed prohibition on abortions in the case of medical emergencies would violate the due course of law clause and guarantees of equal rights and privileges and equality based on sex.
