Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Argument: Oral argument: Case history; Prior: Application of Gault; 99 Ariz. 181 (1965), Supreme Court of Arizona, Rehearing denied Holding; Juveniles tried for crimes in delinquency proceedings should have the right of due process protected by the Fifth Amendment, including the right to confront witnesses and the right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
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.
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court upheld the right of Arizona voters to remove the authority to draw election districts from the Arizona State Legislature and vest it in an independent redistricting commission. [1]
Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the insanity defense used by Arizona.. The Court affirmed the murder conviction of a man with paranoid schizophrenia for killing a police officer.
In 1999, the Supreme Court declined to hear another appeal by Arizonans for Official English in a case in which the Arizona Supreme Court overturned Proposition 106. [ 3 ] In 2006, Arizona voters passed Proposition 103 with 74% of the vote, [ 11 ] [ 12 ] requiring "all official actions of the government be conducted in English" with exceptions ...
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 ...
Screenshot: Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen respond to Gov. Katie Hobbs' State of the State address on Jan. 8, 2024. ©Arizona Senate Republicans
Case history; Prior: United States v. Dickerson, 971 F. Supp. 1023 (E.D. Va. 1997); reversed, 166 F.3d 667 (4th Cir. 1999).: Holding; The mandate of Miranda v.Arizona that a criminal suspect be advised of certain constitutional rights governs the admissibility at trial of the suspect's statements, not the requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3501 that such statements simply be voluntarily given.