Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
Trial court granted defendant motion to suppress; affirmed by the Arizona Court of Appeals, 707 P.2d 331 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985); review denied by Arizona Supreme Court; certiorari granted, 475 U.S. 1107 (1986). Holding; Police require probable cause to seize items in plain view. Court membership; Chief Justice William Rehnquist Associate Justices
The jurisdiction of the court is prescribed by Article VI, Section 5 of the Arizona Constitution. [6] Most of the appeals heard by the court go through the Arizona Court of Appeals, except for death penalty cases, over which the Arizona Supreme Court has sole appellate jurisdiction. The court also has original jurisdiction in a few other ...
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 ...
Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a requirement that a different Supreme Court decision requiring the jury rather than the judge to find aggravating factors would not be applied retroactively. [2]
In a historic decision Tuesday, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled the state must adhere to a 160-year-old law barring all abortions except in cases when “it is necessary to save” a pregnant ...
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a 160-year-old near-total abortion ban still on the books in the state is enforceable, a bombshell decision that adds the state to the growing lists of ...
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.