Search
Filter Search
Acorn International v. State
Held that the Secretary of State's response to ACORN International's public records request asking for documentation of the actual costs for a yearly subscription to state voter database did not violate organization's constitutional right to know
Oberholzer v. Galapo
Held that neighbors' anti-racist signs did not intolerably intrude on homeowners' substantial privacy interests, and thus constitutional free-speech protections did not permit trial court to enjoin continued display of the signs
Commonwealth v. Thompson
Dissent would have held that inventory searches are unconstitutional under art. 1 sec. 8 of the Pennsylvania constitution, and therefore reversed the defendant's judgment on appeal
Layla H v. Virginia
Plaintiffs claim that state’s practice of approving permits for fossil-fuel infrastructure violates substantive due process and public trust rights to natural resources, protected by the state constitution. They claim such practice infringes these rights by contributing to greenhouse-gas pollution and climate change. A trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint, and the intermediate appellate court affirmed on the basis that the plaintiffs lack standing. Finding that there was no reversible error, the Virginia Supreme Court declined to grant review of the appellate court decision.
Ohio v. Isaiah Morris
Court will review court of appeals's decision finding that the state constitutional right to counsel is more protective than the 6th Amendment and requires a defendant, who has been formally charged and secured an attorney, to consult with counsel before any waiver of his right to have an attorney present during a police interrogation can be valid.
Francisco v. Affiliated Urologists
Held that statutes requiring the patient to obtain expert testimony to establish the requisite standard of care in the patient's negligence action did not violate the anti-abrogation clause, despite the patient's allegations that no expert would testify
State v. Chadwick
Held that in multiple acts case when counts charged are identical, the jury must be specifically instructed that it must be unanimous regarding both the conduct supporting conviction on each count and the defendant's guilt
Jenkins v. Beaver County
Held that the mail-in ballot postmark statute did not result in an unequal treatment of voters or interfere with the constitutional right to vote
State v. Baugh
Held that defendant’s counsel rendered constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to request jury instructions on its duty to be unanimous as to each element of each convicted count
Ava Kaufman
Ava Kaufman is the special assistant to the director of the Justice Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.
