State Case Database
Search State Court Report's database of significant state supreme court decisions and pending cases. Download decisions and briefs for cases that develop state constitutional law. This is a selected database and does not include every state supreme court case. See methodology and "How to Use the State Case Database" for more information.
This database is updated monthly, although individual cases may be updated more frequently. Last updated comprehensively with cases decided through June 2025.
Featured Cases
League of Women Voters of Utah v. Utah State Legislature (LWV 1)
Utah Supreme Court dismissed legislators' appeal from trial court ruling that struck the state's congressional map. Lower court said law the map was enacted under violated a fundamental right of voters to alter or reform their government — recognized by the Utah high court earlier in the case — by repealing a redistricting-reform initiative, and subsequently adopted plaintiffs' proposed alternative map
Commonwealth v. Council for Better Education; LaFontaine v. Council for Better Education
Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that a law providing for charter schools funds education outside the “system of common schools,” in violation of clauses requiring the legislature to establish such a system and voters to approve such funding
McDougle v. Nardo
Virginia Supreme Court permitted legislature's proposed amendment to redraw the state’s congressional map to proceed to a vote, while it considers appeal of trial court decision finding the legislative process unconstitutional
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.
In re Chastain
Held that under art. IV of the North Carolina Constitution, a superior court judge commissioned to replace a recused resident superior court judge had the authority to remove a clerk from her elected office and that removal of a clerk of court may be based on misconduct, even if that conduct would not rise to the level of willful misconduct
National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Farrar
Held that the Mississippi Constitution, like the federal Constitution, requires state action for due-process violations, and that the university's cooperation with an NCAA investigation did not transform the NCAA into a state actor for the purposes of due process
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.
