Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Two Guys Vs. Mcginley

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 29, 1961

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

32 entries 32 unlinked
Show
  1. U.S. 582 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court Two Guys v. McGinley
    Search
  2. U.S. 582 (1961) Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley
    Search
  3. U. S. 583 4. The 1959 Act does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. McGowan v. Maryland
    Search
  4. whether it is a law respecting an establishment of religion, within the meaning of the First Amendment. McGowan v. Maryland
    Search
  5. that Act is not a law respecting an establishment of religion within the meaning of the First Amendment. McGowan v. Maryland
    Search
  6. to accomplish its secular purpose that would not even remotely or incidentally give state aid to religion. McGowan v. Maryland
    Search
  7. guarantees of equal protection of the laws and religious freedom. This case is essentially the same as McGowan v. Maryland
    Search
  8. in declining to pass on the constitutionality of the 1939 statute for the reasons stated. Railroad Commission v. Pullman
    Search
  9. Page 366 U. S. 590 The standards for evaluating these contentions have been set out in McGowan v. Maryland
    Search
  10. interference with the absolute tranquility of the day is justified by their requirement and desirability. McGowan v. Maryland
    Search
  11. Williamson v. Lee
    Search
  12. also alleges that the statute discriminates against certain religions. For the same reasons stated in McGowan v. Maryland
    Search
  13. the Pennsylvania courts in interpreting the statutes. We agree that an inquiry into these matters is relevant. McGowan v. Maryland
    Search
  14. Specht Page 366 U. S. 597 v. Commonwealth
    Search
  15. Superior Court affirmed an opinion which specifically relied on the language and reasoning of Specht. Commonwealth v. Bauder
    Search
  16. Act immediately before us, we hold that neither the statute's purpose nor its effect is religious. See McGowan v. Maryland
    Search
  17. supra, at p. 366 U. S. 449 . Moreover, for the same reasons stated in McGowan v. Maryland
    Search
  18. that appellant also has standing to raise the second contention and that the claim is without merit. See McGowan v. Maryland
    Search
  19. See Johnston v. Commonwealth
    Search
  20. Commonwealth v. Nesbit
    Search
  21. Visitation of Sick v. Commonwealth
    Search
  22. Sparhawk v. Union
    Search
  23. Commonwealth v. American
    Search
  24. U.S. Supreme Court Two Guys v. McGinley
    Search
  25. Harrison-Allentown, Inc. v. McGinley
    Search
  26. the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. McGowan v. Maryland
    Search
  27. of the First Amendment. McGowan v. Maryland
    Search
  28. McGowan v. Maryland
    Search
  29. Railroad Commission v. Pullman
    Search
  30. of Specht. Commonwealth v. Bauder
    Search
  31. See McGowan v. Maryland
    Search
  32. Visitation of Sick v. Commonwealth
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial