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
People v. Jennings
Will consider what standard Michigan courts should adopt to determine whether prosecutorial misconduct bars retrial under the state’s double jeopardy clause. The defendant argues that the federal constitutional standard--which requires proof that a prosecutor specifically intended to cause a mistrial--inadequately protects the principles of double jeopardy and insufficiently deters egregious conduct, so an objective standard should apply under the Michigan Constitution.
Commonwealth v. Yard
Held that the evidentiary limitation that requires that "proof is evident or presumption great," which calls for a burden of proof between probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt, does not apply to the life-offense exception to the right to bail under the state constitution
State ex rel. Collar v. Evnen
Held that referendum seeking to repeal act providing scholarships to eligible students to cover costs of schooling did not make an "appropriation" within the meaning of constitutional exception to referendum power
State ex rel. Elizabeth Constance v. Evnen
Held that voter ballot initiative, which proposed to amend the state constitution to limit abortion in the second and third trimesters, did not violate the single subject rule
Richard v. Governor
Ruled that the state constitutional provision governing choice of governor, council, and senators did not mandate that votes must be counted by hand
Ex parte Charette
Held that the exhaustion of administrative remedies in the Texas Ethics Commission is a prerequisite to bringing criminal charges against a political candidate for campaign-law violations
People v. Lewis
Held that the county court is not required to grant appeal bond to a defendant convicted of a misdemeanor and found to pose a danger to the community, but is, upon request, required to stay the execution of defendant's sentence pending appeal to the district court
Commonwealth v. Dilworth
Held that the court will apply a less rigorous standard when evaluating equal protection claims in the context of alleged discriminatory policing during the investigatory phase of a case
State v. Miller
Held that the Iowa Constitution’s cruel and unusual punishment clause does not prohibit sentencing juvenile offenders to a minimum prison term before they are eligible for parole and rejected the defendant’s argument that the same clause bars such a sentence unless there is expert testimony concerning defendants’ “youthful characteristics"
Hild, Administration of the Estate of Boldman v. Samaritan Health Partners
Held that when jurors are presented with interrogatories that require them to separately decide the elements of a negligence claim, the same-juror rule applies, requiring the same three-fourths of jurors to agree on all questions comprising the verdict slip
