Search
Filter Search
Sumrall v. State
Ruled that the provision requiring prosecuting attorney's consent to retroactive first-offender treatment did not violate the Georgia Constitution provision providing that no person shall be deprived of right to prosecute or defend their cause in any of the courts of the state
Hollis v. City of LaGrange
Held that the constitutional provision prohibiting the General Assembly from regulating or fixing municipal public utilities charges did not prevent judicial review of city residents' putative class action complaint against city, alleging that it imposed excessive mandatory charges for utilities services that constituted unauthorized tax under the Georgia Constitution
Crenshaw ex rel. Crenshaw v. Sonic Drive In of Greenville, Inc.
Held that the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusive-remedy provisions did not violate the Alabama Constitution's clause that every injured person has the right to a remedy
State v. Mumford
Dissent would have held that a K-9 unit's brief entry into the cabin of a vehicle duting a lawful traffic stop constituted an unconstitutional search under both the federal and state search-and-seizure provisions
Jackson v. State
Dissent would have granted defendant's petition to transfer jurisdiction and found that the State had not sufficiently shown the reasonableness of the officer's search of the defendant's locked trunk based only on the smell of burnt marijuana coming from the passenger compartment, as required under the Indiana Constitution's search-and-seizure standard
O’Neil v. Gianforte
Held that the state constitution’s protection of the public’s “right to know” allows for a limited gubernatorial privilege exception if the governor meets the “high bar of demonstrating that the information is essential to carrying out a constitutional duty and that its disclosure would chill future candor.” Also held that the process for determining whether a particular document otherwise subject to the "right to know" may be shielded by gubernatorial privilege should be the same as for other "candor privileges" (e.g., attorney-client, doctor-patient), including in camera review by the trial court to determine the proper scope. Remanded to the district court to conduct such review with respect to the requested agency documents.
Knight v. Fontes
Will consider whether the retention election process for intermediate appellate judges violates the state constitution's "free and equal" election and equal protection provisions. Voters represented by Goldwater Institute allege that the retention elections -- in which voters currently vote only for the appellate judges who reside in their designated geographic area -- should be statewide, as appellate decisions may have statewide impact, and cases are assigned not based on a judge's residency and regularly transferred.
Vet Voice Foundation v. Hobbs
Washington Supreme Court held requirement that election workers verify voter signatures on mail ballots, when coupled with the state’s recently expanded process for notifying voters and providing an opportunity to cure when a signature mismatch is identified, does not facially violate the state constitution’s free and equal elections, privileges and immunities, or due process clause.
Albert M. Rosenblatt
Albert M. Rosenblatt is the Historian for New York’s Unified Court System and teaches at NYU Law School. He served as a judge in New York, including its highest court, the Court of Appeals...
New York’s First Constitution Was a Reaction to British Rule
The constitution, which served as a model for parts of the U.S. Constitution, adopted many policies of the English legal system.
