theme: Colin Fall 2022 autoscale: true slidenumbers: true header: #373737, alignment(left), line-height(150%), text-scale(1.0), ITC Galliard Pro Bold Footer:
[fit] Theories for Construing State Constitutions
[fit] 06 - Differently worded provisions &
[fit] 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)
—
In-Class Exercise
