Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Lemon Vs. Kurtzman

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 02, 1973

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

68 entries 11 linked 57 unlinked
Show
  1. Stovall Vs. Denno US Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1967
  2. Tehan Vs. Shott US Supreme Court · Jan 19, 1966
  3. Linkletter Vs. Walker US Supreme Court · Jun 07, 1965
  4. Chevron Oil Co. Vs. Huson US Supreme Court · Dec 06, 1971
  5. Hecht Co. Vs. Bowles US Supreme Court · Feb 28, 1944
  6. Board of Education Vs. Allen US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1968
  7. Holmberg Vs. Armbrecht US Supreme Court · Feb 25, 1946
  8. City of Phoenix Vs. Kolodziejski US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1970
  9. Tilton Vs. Richardson US Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1971
  10. Zorach Vs. Clauson US Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1952
  11. Torcaso Vs. Watkins US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1961
  12. U.S. 192 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Lemon v. Kurtzman
    Search
  13. U.S. 192 (1973) Lemon v. Kurtzman
    Search
  14. FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Syllabus Following this Court's invalidation in Lemon v. Kurtzman
    Search
  15. the three-judge District Court for further Page 411 U. S. 194 proceedings consistent with our opinion. Lemon v. Kurtzman
    Search
  16. case should be applied to convictions of others that predated the new constitutional development. E.g., Robinson v. Neil
    Search
  17. Adams v. Illinois
    Search
  18. Desist v. United
    Search
  19. Johnson v. New
    Search
  20. Hanover Shoe v. United
    Search
  21. Simpson v. Union
    Search
  22. England v. State
    Search
  23. to the validity of municipal financing founded upon electoral procedures later declared unconstitutional, Cipriano v. City
    Search
  24. of Houma, 395 U. S. 701 (1969), and City of Phoenix v. Kolodziejski
    Search
  25. or to the validity of elections for local officials held under possibly discriminatory voting laws, Allen v. State
    Search
  26. Norton v. Shelby
    Search
  27. Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxter
    Search
  28. S. 200 the District Court's evaluation of the proper means of implementing an equitable decree. Cf. United States v. Estate
    Search
  29. appellate review is correspondingly narrow. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
    Search
  30. Brown v. Board
    Search
  31. U. S. 321 , 321 U. S. 329 -330 (1944). See also Holmberg v. Armbrecht
    Search
  32. established that reliance interest weigh heavily in the shaping of an appropriate equitable remedy. City of Phoenix v. Kolodziejski
    Search
  33. Cipriano v. City
    Search
  34. Allen v. State
    Search
  35. San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez
    Search
  36. Federalism suggests that federal court intervention in State judicial processes be appropriately confined. See Younger v. Harris
    Search
  37. In Linkletter v. Walker
    Search
  38. citing Great Northern R. Co. v. Sunburst
    Search
  39. See Lemon v. Kurtzman
    Search
  40. of state involvement in religious schools, with the analysis based upon the facts and circumstances before us. Tilton v. Richardson
    Search
  41. Walz v. Tax
    Search
  42. Everson v. Board
    Search
  43. Amendment, made applicable to the States by virtue of the Fourteenth. We said in unequivocal words in Everson v. Board
    Search
  44. We reiterated the same idea in Zorach v. Clauson
    Search
  45. U. S. 306 , 343 U. S. 314 , in McGowan v. Maryland
    Search
  46. U. S. 420 , 366 U. S. 443 , and in Torcaso v. Watkins
    Search
  47. U. S. 488 , 367 U. S. 493 . We repeated the same idea in McCollum v. Board
    Search
  48. the newly announced rule goes to the fairness of the trial that had been completed under the old rule. See Johnson v. New
    Search
  49. authority may at times deny a litigant due process if applied retroactively. See Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill
    Search
  50. judicial ruling to prospective applications. The disruptive effect in criminal law enforcement is one example. Stovall v. Denno
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial