Search
Filter Search
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
Sarah L. Swan
Sarah L. Swan is a professor of law and Dean’s Civil Governance Scholar at Rutgers Law School.
How Will Federal Funding Cuts Impact State Budgets?
Fiscal provisions found in every state constitution constrain states’ ability to work around budget shortfalls.
Cities Battle State Legislatures for the Right to Regulate Vapes
City efforts to prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco are an important part of the push to curb tobacco usage in children.
Krasner v. Sunday
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will consider the Philadelphia district attorney's challenge to a law that requires the state attorney general to appoint a special prosecutor to have jurisdiction over crimes committed within the regional public transit system. The Commonwealth Court rejected the allegations, including that the law unconstitutionally divests the district attorney of jurisdiction over part of the office’s territory, nullifies the district attorney’s core prosecutorial functions, and violates the due process rights of defendants based on a provision preventing those charged by the special prosecutor from challenging his authority.
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.
Sean Beienburg
Sean Beienburg is an associate professor in the School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership at Arizona State University, where he has...
