State Court Docket Watch
-
Cooper v. Berger et al.
Docket Watch 2018
“A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty.” So reads Article 1, Section 35 of the North Carolina Constitution. Perhaps nowhere has North Carolina applied this maxim more frequently as of late than to the very institution charged with guarding the principle—its courts.
-
Hunsucker v. Fallin
Docket Watch 2018
By A.J Ferate
With certain limited exceptions, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has in the past followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s seminal decision in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) when evaluating a party’s standing to bring suit. This standard requires a litigant to, among other things, demonstrate that the challenged act causes the plaintiff “injury in fact” that is “concrete and particularized” to the plaintiff. This safeguard of the judicial process evaporated for public law actions in Oklahoma with the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in Hunsucker v. Fallin.
-
California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland
Docket Watch 2018
Unlike our federal structure of government, which places the legislative power exclusively in the hands of elected representatives, California’s state constitution, like a handful of other states’ constitutions, allows voters to legislate through the initiative process. This is known as “direct democracy.”
-
Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. Ohio Department of Education
Docket Watch 2018
By Douglas R. Cole, Erik J. Clark
In Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. Ohio Department of Education, the Ohio Supreme Court held that public funding of Ohio’s public charter “e-schools” is based on each e-school student’s actual participation in the e-school’s curriculum, rather than based solely on the e-school’s enrollment count.
-
North Dakota Legislative Assembly v. Burgum
Docket Watch 2018
The separation of powers between executive and legislative branches is an important and central feature of American governance on the state and federal levels. In the case of North Dakota Legislative Assembly v. Burgum, 2018 ND 189 (ND 2018), the North Dakota Supreme Court exercised its original jurisdiction under the state constitution to address a collision of constitutional power between the North Dakota legislative assembly and first term Governor Doug Burgum. At issue were five item vetoes exercised by Governor Burgum following the adjournment of the last regular session of the legislature.
-
The People of the State of Illinois v. Walter Relerford
Docket Watch 2018
By Ilya Shapiro
After interning, Walter Relerford interviewed for a position and continued sending emails and phone calls trying to get a job. He was then seen by and waved at the interviewer while shopping at CVS outside the office. Nevertheless, he was turned down for the position. He showed up unexpectedly at the office and was asked to leave—which he did. Relerford then posted on his Facebook page some obscene posts describing sex acts he would do with the interviewer. The interviewer did not have these posts, but a third party forwarded them to her. On these facts, Relerford was eventually convicted of stalking and cyberstalking and sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.
-
Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas v. Matthew Andrews
Docket Watch 2018
By Lee Rudofsky
Article 5, section 20 of the Arkansas Constitution declares that “[t]he State of Arkansas shall never be made a defendant in any of her courts.” In Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas v. Matthew Andrews, 2018 Ark. 12, the Arkansas Supreme Court overruled more than 20 years of precedent and held—based on the text of section 20—that the state legislature may not waive sovereign immunity. The Court thus invalidated the portion of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act purporting to waive sovereign immunity for the type of claim brought by Mr. Andrews. This decision sent shock waves through the state judiciary, the state legislature, and the state bar. Judges, legislators, and lawyers continue to debate the breadth or narrowness of the holding and its impact on various types of lawsuits against the state. Several cases already on the docket for this coming term will press the Arkansas Supreme Court to apply, broaden, refine, or narrow its decision in Andrews.
-
Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court
Docket Watch 2018
Once again California has moved ahead of other states in expanding exposure to tort liability, ruling a university has a duty to protect students from foreseeable violence. Regents of the University of California v. Superior Court (Rosen), __ Cal.5th __ [2018 WL 2018 WL 1415703] (No. S230568, March 23, 2018). The California Supreme Court has led the nation in issuing similar pro-plaintiff decisions, such as its 1976 opinion in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, where a mental health professional has a duty to individuals threatened by a patient.
-
Ex parte Jessie Livell Phillips
Docket Watch 2018
Jessie Livell Phillips shot and killed his wife, Erica Phillips, on February 27, 2009. Testimony at trial indicated that Erica was pregnant when she died. Phillips was convicted of one count of capital murder for the deaths of two people, Erica and her unborn child, by one act. See § 13A-5-49(9), Ala. Code 1975 (regarding the aggravating circumstance of intentionally causing the death of two or more persons by one act or pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct). The jury unanimously recommended that Phillips be sentenced to death, and the trial court sentenced him to death.
-
Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution v. Secretary of State
Docket Watch 2018
By Donovan S. Asmar, Thomas J. Rheaume, Jr.
On July 30, 2018, the Michigan Supreme Court in Citizens Protecting Michigan’s Constitution v. Secretary of State ruled that a proposal by the Volunteers with the Voters Not Politicians (VNP) to create an independent redistricting commission may appear on Michigan’s general election ballot.