State Case Database
Search State Court Report's database of significant state supreme court decisions and pending cases. Download decisions and briefs for cases that develop state constitutional law. This is a selected database and does not include every state supreme court case. See methodology and "How to Use the State Case Database" for more information.
This database is updated monthly, although individual cases may be updated more frequently. Last updated comprehensively with cases decided through February 2025.
Featured Cases
LeMieux v. Evers
The Wisconsin Supreme Court held, in a divided decision, that the governor did not exceed his partial veto authority under the state constitution when he altered digits, words, and punctuation in a budget bill to extend a school funding increase from 2 to 402 years.
Griffin v. State Board of Elections
A candidate for a seat on the North Carolina Supreme Court, who lost by over 700 votes, claims that the state board of elections followed an incorrect process for registering voters and seeks in invalidate more than 60,000 votes.
People v. Taylor; People v. Czarnecki
Michigan Supreme Court held that mandatory life-without-parole sentences violate the state constitution’s protection against “cruel or unusual” punishment for anyone under age 21 at the time of the offense. The decision extends the court’s 2022 ruling in People v. Parks that such sentences are unconstitutional for those 18 or under.
Commonwealth v. Yard
Held that the evidentiary limitation that requires that "proof is evident or presumption great," which calls for a burden of proof between probable cause and beyond a reasonable doubt, does not apply to the life-offense exception to the right to bail under the state constitution
Republican National Committee v. Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc; Georgia v. Eternal Vigilance Action
The Georgia Supreme Court left in place a lower court ruling that several controversial new election rules are “illegal, unconstitutional, and void.” The rules would have made election certification discretionary, required hand-counting the number of ballots, made drop boxes harder to use, and expanded the role of poll watchers. The appeal will proceed on a normal schedule, which means the state supreme court will fully consider the challenge against the rules over the next few months.
State ex rel. Collar v. Evnen
Held that referendum seeking to repeal act providing scholarships to eligible students to cover costs of schooling did not make an "appropriation" within the meaning of constitutional exception to referendum power
State ex rel. Elizabeth Constance v. Evnen
Held that voter ballot initiative, which proposed to amend the state constitution to limit abortion in the second and third trimesters, did not violate the single subject rule
Richard v. Governor
Ruled that the state constitutional provision governing choice of governor, council, and senators did not mandate that votes must be counted by hand
Cincinnati Enquirer v. Bloom
Found the blanket sealing of a juvenile’s delinquency records when the juvenile is found not delinquent — the juvenile equivalent of not guilty — unconstitutional because there was no determination that the harm to the juvenile outweighed the public’s right to access court records
Gonzalez v. Miller
Unanimously affirmed the denial of a district attorney’s effort to dismiss a state Open Records Act request relating to her office’s “failure . . . to effectively prosecute criminal cases, and an open disregard for the laws of the State of Georgia"
Ex parte Charette
Held that the exhaustion of administrative remedies in the Texas Ethics Commission is a prerequisite to bringing criminal charges against a political candidate for campaign-law violations
People v. Lewis
Held that the county court is not required to grant appeal bond to a defendant convicted of a misdemeanor and found to pose a danger to the community, but is, upon request, required to stay the execution of defendant's sentence pending appeal to the district court
Paschall v. Thurston
Ruled that votes for a proposed marijuana-related amendment will not be counted because the name and ballot description for the measure are misleading
