Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Court noted in a supplemental opinion that the case law it had relied on was all focused on Miranda warnings, not confessions, and there was other case law that said involuntary confessions could never be harmless. [1] The Court therefore ordered a new trial. The state of Arizona appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Arizona Supreme Court is the state supreme court of the U.S. state of Arizona. Sitting in the Supreme Court building in downtown Phoenix, the court consists of a chief justice, a vice chief justice, and five associate justices. Each justice is appointed by the governor of Arizona from a list recommended by a bipartisan commission.
1971 – President Richard Nixon nominates William H. Rehnquist, who practiced law in Phoenix from 1953 to 1969, to the United States Supreme Court. Rehnquist became Chief Justice in 1976. 1973 – Arizona Supreme Court adopts Rule 31, affirming its jurisdiction over the practice of law.
Planned Parenthood Arizona, et al. v. Kris Mayes was an Arizona Supreme Court case in which the court upheld an 1864 law criminalizing abortions except to save the life of the mother. [1] Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes did not enforce the law when it was in effect. [2] The law was repealed on May 2, 2024, and the repeal took effect on ...
On Tuesday, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled to ban abortions except in the case where it would save a mother’s life, creating a path to prison for providers. Critics call the ruling, which ...
Argument: Oral argument: Opinion announcement: Opinion announcement: Holding; The Arizona Supreme Court's holding that Lynch v.Arizona was not a significant change in the law is an exceptional case where a state-court judgment rests on such a novel and unforeseeable interpretation of a state-court procedural rule that the decision is not adequate to foreclose review of the federal claim.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled on Friday that nearly 100,000 residents can receive full ballots without citizenship proof, swiftly resolving a clerical blunder that questioned whether they could ...
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted the Town's motion for summary judgment. [30] The church then appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding the town's ordinance was content neutral. [30] Citing Hill v.