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 August 2025.
Featured Cases
McDougle v. Scott
Virginia Supreme Court, in a split decision, nullified a constitutional amendment approved by voters that would have redrawn the state's congressional districts, finding the legislative process used for the amendment violated the state constitution
Hoke County Board of Education v. State of North Carolina
The North Carolina Supreme Court overturned its own precedent and put an end to more than 30 years of litigation involving the funding of public education in the state
Commonwealth v. Lee
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that mandating a life sentence, without the possibility of parole, for “felony murder” — a legal doctrine that allows someone to be prosecuted for murder for any death that occurs during the commission of a separate felony, even if the defendant never meant to kill anyone — violates the Pennsylvania Constitution’s ban on “cruel” punishments
People v. Clark
Held that arrests pursuant to investigative alerts do not automatically violate Illinois Constitution's search and seizure clause
Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. State
Ruled that the statute limiting the right of local citizen initiatives to regulate auxiliary containers did not facially violate the state constitutional provision governing initiative and referendum
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
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.
