State court rulings that address both federal and state bases for decision
State v. Scottize Danyelle Brown
930 N.W.2d 840 (Iowa 2019)
—
State court rulings that address both federal and state bases for decision
—
Ohio v. Robinette
653 N.E.2d 695 (Ohio 1995)
519 U.S. 33 (1996)
685 N.E.2d 762 (Ohio 1997)
Important Precedent:
Michigan v. Long
463 U.S. 1032 (1982)
—
Compare & Contrast
Racing Association of Central Iowa v. Fitzgerald
675 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2004)
Ohio v. Robinette
685 N.E.2d 762 (Ohio 1997)
—
Sequencing
In what order should a state court resolve state and federal constitutional claims?
- “Primacy” approach
- “Dual sovereignty” approach
- “Interstitial” or “Secondary” approach
—
Recap of state court interpretation
of state constitutions
—
Sitz v. Department of State Police
506 N.W.2d 209 (Mich. 1993)
State v. Hempele
576 A.2d 793 (N.J. 1990)
State v. Wright
961 N.W.2d 396 (Iowa 2021)
Blum v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.
626 A.2d 537 (Penn. 1993)
—
Racing Association of Central Iowa v. Fitzgerald
675 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2004)
State v. Jorden
156 P.3d 893 (Wash. 2007)
State v. Mixton
478 P.3d 1227 (Ariz. 2021)
—
State v. Scottize Danyelle Brown
930 N.W.2d 840 (Iowa 2019)
Ohio v. Robinette
653 N.E.2d 695 (Ohio 1995)
519 U.S. 33 (1996)
685 N.E.2d 762 (Ohio 1997)
—