Arizona Court Decisions Statute 
SCOTUSBlog
MAY 23, 2022
The case pitted the language of the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which generally prohibits federal courts from holding an evidentiary hearing on these kinds of claims if the prisoner “has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State court proceedings,” against a 2012 Supreme Court decision, Martinez v.
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.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Diane Drain
DECEMBER 31, 2020
It is possible that these interpretations of the new Act will change with new legislation or court decisions, so never assume what you read one day will be interpreted the same way the next day. Drain - Phoenix Arizona Bankruptcy Attorney. Below are brief descriptions of each of these amendments.
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.
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?
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. Johnson asks the court to resolve whether denying virtually all exercise violates the Eighth Amendment absent a security justification. Below we briefly discuss those 14 cases.
JonathanTurley
MAY 25, 2021
50-5-85’s inclusion of “other actions that are intended to limit commercial relations with Israel” makes the statute impermissibly vague. In a 2-1 panel decision, the court also found that the was overly broad. In so ruling, the appellate court reversed a January 2019 district court decision.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
113 
Let's personalize your content