Search
Filter Search
ARKK Properties, LLLC v. Cameron
Held that statute permitting officials sued for alleged constitutional violations to compel transfer of the suit to another randomly-selected circuit court violates separation of powers
Syed v. Lee
Intermediate court held that victim's representative's notice of a hearing on a motion to vacate defendant's convictions was inconsistent with constitution's rights for crime victims
Natalie R. v. State of Utah
Plaintiffs claim that state's policy of promoting fossil-fuel development violates their substantive due process rights to life and to be free from government conduct that endangers health and safety
Castellanos v. State of California et al.
Plaintiffs claim that ballot measure classifying app-based drivers as independent contractors infringes on Legislature's constitutional authority to create a workers' compensation system
Michael S. Kang
Michael S. Kang is the Class of 1940 Professor of Law at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law. He is the coauthor of ...
Ex parte Sheffield
Ruled that defendant’s speedy trial claims were not cognizable in pretrial habeas corpus litigation, which would effectively undermine rather than vindicate the constitutional right before trial
Falls v. Goins
Ruled that requiring persons with out of state felony convictions to comply with two separate statutes to regain suffrage rights was within the legislature’s constitutional authority to disenfranchise persons with felony convictions
Facebook, Inc. v. State
Ruled that the contemporaneous acquisition of electronic communications is the equivalent of wiretap surveillance and is therefore entitled to greater constitutional protection
Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice v. State
Ruled that legislative acts prohibiting abortion after certain cutoff points while providing for a civil enforcement mechanism were unconstitutional
State v. Hamby
Ruled that there was no violation of unanimous jury verdict rule despite alleged flaws in jury instructions, as nature of evidence abated risk that jury did not “substantially agree” to acts described in instructions