Arizona Court Decisions Litigating Statute 
SCOTUSBlog
DECEMBER 9, 2021
As Roberts put it, what should the court do in a situation where “the plain language” of a statute “seems to require one result,” while “the plainly logical meaning of a subsequent precedent” seems to require the opposite? But a 2012 Supreme Court decision, Martinez v. The question raised in Shinn v.
SCOTUSBlog
MAY 28, 2024
As the case comes to the Supreme Court, Medrano contended that the use of his statements violated his rights under Miranda v. Arizona , the landmark 1966 decision that requires police officers to tell suspects that they have a right to remain silent and to have a lawyer with them during interrogation.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
SCOTUSBlog
OCTOBER 5, 2023
Several of them are sequels to earlier high court decisions. First Amendment The current court is very solicitous of First Amendment rights. Three trials the district court selected as non-binding “bellwether” trials resulted in plaintiff verdicts. Below we briefly discuss those 14 cases. du Pont de Nemours & Co.
SCOTUSBlog
APRIL 19, 2022
Arizona is one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions in American criminal procedure. Dickerson put the kibosh on an unconstitutional federal statute that, effectively, sought to overrule Miranda. Share Miranda v. 3) Goodbye, Miranda ? 4) Proximate cause says what?
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
APRIL 18, 2023
In 2021, the District Court ruled that the Berkeley ordinance was not preempted by EPCA , rejecting the notion that EPCA preempts local ordinances that do “not facially address any of those [energy conservation or energy use] standards.” Under EPCA, the U.S. Berkeley has not yet said whether it will appeal the Ninth Circuit’s ruling.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
MAY 7, 2021
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. Circuit majority opinion’s interpretation was foreclosed by the statute and violated separation of powers. and non-U.S.
ClimateChange-ClimateLaw
AUGUST 4, 2021
Each month, Arnold & Porter and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law collect and summarize developments in climate-related litigation, which we also add to our U.S. climate litigation charts. The court further found that EPCA’s legislative history did not support the plaintiff’s “expansive interpretation.” and non-U.S.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
100 
Let's personalize your content