Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Epperson Vs. Arkansas

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Nov 12, 1968

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

37 entries 8 linked 29 unlinked
Show
  1. Watson Vs. Jones US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1871
    Relied / Followed
  2. Shelton Vs. Tucker US Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1960
  3. Zorach Vs. Clauson US Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1952
  4. Torcaso Vs. Watkins US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1961
  5. Meyer Vs. Nebraska US Supreme Court · Jun 04, 1923
  6. Bartels Vs. Iowa US Supreme Court · Jun 04, 1923
  7. Engel Vs. Vitale US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1962
  8. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. Vs. Wilson US Supreme Court · May 26, 1952
  9. U.S. 97 (1968) U.S. Supreme Court Epperson v. Arkansas
    Search
  10. U.S. 97 (1968) Epperson v. Arkansas
    Search
  11. U. S. 479 , 364 U. S. 487 (1960). As this Page 393 U. S. 105 Court said in Keyishian v. Board
    Search
  12. by the Due Process Clause, to engage in any of the common occupations of life and to acquire useful knowledge. Meyer v. Nebraska
    Search
  13. U. S. 390 (1923). See also Bartels v. Iowa
    Search
  14. teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma. In Everson v. Board
    Search
  15. U. S. 1 , 330 U. S. 15 (1947). At the following Term of Court, in McCollum v. Board
    Search
  16. First Amendment was intended to erect between church and state. Id. at 333 U. S. 211 . See also Engel v. Vitale
    Search
  17. Abington School District v. Schempp
    Search
  18. of theory which is deemed antagonistic to a particular dogma. As Mr. Justice Clark stated in Joseph Burstyn Inc. v. Wilson
    Search
  19. U. S. 495 , 343 U. S. 505 (1952). The test was stated as follows in Abington School District v. Schempp
    Search
  20. in its schools any conditions that it chooses, however restrictive they may be of constitutional guarantees. Keyishian v. Board
    Search
  21. Scopes v. State
    Search
  22. In Scopes v. State
    Search
  23. Everson v. Board
    Search
  24. McCollum v. Board
    Search
  25. Fowler v. Rhode
    Search
  26. meaning that he cannot know when he has violated it denies him the first essential of due process. See, e.g., Connally v. General
    Search
  27. it is simply too difficult to determine what those motives were. See, e.g., United States v. O'Brien
    Search
  28. Chicago Life Insurance Co. v. Needles
    Search
  29. that, I conclude that the statute before us is so vague as to be invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment. See Cramp v. Board
    Search
  30. U.S. Supreme Court Epperson v. Arkansas
    Search
  31. Keyishian v. Board
    Search
  32. In Everson v. Board
    Search
  33. Connally v. General
    Search
  34. Chicago Life Insurance Co. v. Needles
    Search
  35. the Fourteenth Amendment. See Cramp v. Board
    Search
  36. Cox v. Louisiana
    Search
  37. United States v. O'Brien
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial