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.
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 ...
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 Friday that roughly 98,000 Arizonans whose voter registration status was in limbo will ... those voters had never been asked to comply with the stricter rules ...
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.