Search for: "Arizona Supreme Court" Results 9041 - 9060 of 9,064
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Aug 2006, 1:51 pm
The Arizona Supreme Court reassigned longtime Justice of the Peace, Jacque McVay, from the bench August 18, 2006, due to a pending investigation. [read post]
19 Aug 2006, 8:53 am
The Mississippi Supreme Court holds in Alan Rubenstein v. [read post]
18 Aug 2006, 6:03 pm
Earlier this week, as detailed here, the Arizona Supreme Court decided that Crawford and the Confrontation Clause are inapplicable at the penalty phase of a capital case. [read post]
12 Jul 2006, 7:55 am
Arizona, but the Court also issued an interesting batch of "GVRs" on June 30, granting cert, vacating and remanding for reconsideration in light of Davis/Hammon in seven cases. [read post]
30 Jun 2006, 12:00 pm
Arizona, No. 05-5966 (June 28, 2006), the Supreme Court held that Arizona did not violate Due Process when it narrowed the insanity test to inquire only whether the defendant had the capacity to tell right from wrong.The Arizona legislature amended its insanity statute to drop the portion of the definition of insanity relating to cognitive capacity, that is the ability of the defendant to know what he was doing, leaving only the moral test of whether he… [read post]
29 Jun 2006, 10:10 am
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Thursday upheld Arizona's law governing insanity defenses in criminal cases, ruling in Clark v. [read post]
19 Apr 2006, 2:32 pm
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Wednesday heard oral arguments in Clark v. [read post]
14 Mar 2006, 12:56 pm
In late February, the United States Supreme Court held that a woman who tripped over her mail left on her porch rather than her mailbox can sue the United States Postal Service for personal injuries arising out of her fall. [read post]
17 Feb 2006, 8:11 am
This type of litigation is known as "dram shop" litigation, and was formally recognized by the Arizona Supreme Court in 1983. [read post]
28 Jan 2006, 3:06 pm
[JURIST] Arizona [JURIST news archive] state legislator David Burnell Smith [official website] became the first US lawmaker removed from office for violating a state's public campaign financing rules when the Arizona Supreme Court [official website] declined Thursday to stay an earlier court order [text] directing him to step down. [read post]
5 Dec 2005, 3:21 am
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] on Monday granted certiorari in two cases, including one involving the insanity defense in criminal trials. [read post]
27 Nov 2005, 12:06 pm
In a stateside suburban jail, government abuses sufficient to "shock the conscience"--the Supreme Court's notoriously ambiguous, 53-year-old benchmark--are an impermissible abridgment of Fourteenth Amendment due process. [read post]
17 May 2005, 9:30 am
[JURIST] Supporters of an Arizona initiative seeking a ban on same-sex marriages and legal recognition of unmarried couples launched their public campaign Tuesday on the one year anniversary of the Massachusetts Supreme Court's decision [text] legalizing gay marriage. [read post]
22 Jan 2005, 12:53 pm
The Arizona Supreme Court stated that courts are no longer to consider the “moral quality” of misdemeanor crimes. [read post]
1 Dec 2004, 7:05 am
[JURIST] The Arizona Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to hear an appeal which will determine whether state motorists will be allowed to cite racial profiling in defending against criminal prosecutions stemming from traffic stops by police. [read post]
12 Jun 2004, 5:01 pm
On June 13, 1966, the Supreme Court required that a suspect be warned of certain rights before police questioning. [read post]
19 Apr 2004, 10:29 am
The Supreme Court is taking up a death penalty case from Arizona. [read post]
22 Oct 2003, 4:33 pm
AP is reporting that the Arizona Supreme Court has overturned Danny Montano's death sentence and ordered that he be resentenced. [read post]
13 Jun 2003, 8:46 am
Arizona, the Supreme Court required that a suspect be warned of certain rights before police questioning. [read post]