Citation network
Wolman Vs. Walters
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 24, 1977
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
-
U.S. 229 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Wolman v. WaltersSearch
-
U.S. 229 (1977) Wolman v. WaltersSearch
-
services to nonpublic as well as public school children does not have the primary effect of aiding religion, Lemon v. KurtzmanSearch
-
Meek v. PittengerSearch
-
it inescapably has the primary effect of providing a direct and substantial advancement of sectarian education, Meek v. PittengerSearch
-
and the funding of such trips (like the impermissible funding Page 433 U. S. 231 of maps and charts in Meek v. PittengerSearch
-
school teachers necessary to ensure secular use of field trip funds would involve excessive entanglement. Lemon v. KurtzmanSearch
-
and (3) must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. See Roemer v. MarylandSearch
-
S. 235 -236. 2. The textbook loan system is strikingly similar to the systems approved in Board of Education v. AllenSearch
-
U. S. 236 , and Meek v. PittengerSearch
-
is not controlled by the nonpublic school, and thus there is no direct aid to religion or need for supervision. Levitt v. CommitteeSearch
-
to textbooks and testing and scoring (as well as diagnostic and therapeutic services) for the reasons stated in Meek v. PittengerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 387 (REHNQUIST, J., concurring in judgment in part, dissenting in part), and Committee for Public Education v. NyquistSearch
-
by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, Meek v. PittengerSearch
-
of the statutory program. A three-judge court was convened. It held the statute constitutional in all respects. Wolman v. EssexSearch
-
U.S. 1037 (1977). I Section 3317.06 was enacted after this Court's May, 1975, decision in Meek v PittengerSearch
-
of distinction, the character of these schools is substantially comparable to that of the schools involved in Lemon v. KurtzmanSearch
-
advances nor inhibits religion, and must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. See Roemer v. MarylandSearch
-
loan of textbooks to individual students bears a striking resemblance to the systems approved in Board of Education v. AllenSearch
-
U. S. 236 (196), and in Page 433 U. S. 238 Meek v. PittengerSearch
-
In Levitt v. CommitteeSearch
-
Lemon, 403 U.S. at 403 U. S. 14 . See App. 28. Cf. Pierce v. SocietySearch
-
J) is constitutional. v. DiagnosticSearch
-
to all schoolchildren -- public and nonpublic -- does not have the primary effect of aiding religion. In Lemon v. KurtzmanSearch
-
U.S. at 403 U. S. 616 -617 (emphasis added). See also Meek v. PittengerSearch
-
Id. at 421 U. S. 372 . See also Public Funds for Public Schools v. MarburgerSearch
-
U. S. 250 process is, to a large extent, devoted to the inculcation of religious values and belief. See Lemon v. KurtzmanSearch
-
conclusion is compelled by the Court's prior consideration of an analogous issue in Committee for Public Education v. NyquistSearch
-
rather than to the church-related schools. The Court observed, however, that, unlike the bus program in Everson v. BoardSearch
-
U.S. at 413 U. S. 783 , quoting Lemon v. KurtzmanSearch
-
held this feature to be constitutionally indistinguishable from that with which the Court was concerned in Everson v. BoardSearch
-
has recognized, this fact alone may be sufficient to invalidate the program as impermissible direct aid. See Lemon v. KurtzmanSearch
-
and for a sectarian institution, an unacceptable risk of fostering of religion is an inevitable byproduct. See Meek v. PittengerSearch
-
U. S. 618 . Funding of field trips, therefore, must be treated as was the funding of maps and charts in Meek v. PittengerSearch
-
supra, the funding of buildings and tuition in Committee for Public Education v. NyquistSearch
-
supra, and the funding of teacher-prepared tests in Levitt v. CommitteeSearch
-
U.S. at 403 U. S. 619 . Page 433 U. S. 255 See also Roemer v. MarylandSearch
-
VII and VIII of the Court's opinion. For the reasons stated in MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST's separate opinion in Meek v. PittengerSearch
-
U. S. 349 (1975), and MR. JUSTICE WHITE's dissenting opinion in Committee for Public Education v. NyquistSearch
-
(Parts III, IV, v. andSearch
-
Court judgment holding constitutional the predecessor Ohio statute providing for aid to nonpublic schools. Wolman v. EssexSearch
-
U.S. at 403 U. S. 616 . See also Tilton v. RichardsonSearch
-
Roemer v. MarylandSearch
-
of bad faith or any conscious design to evade the limitations imposed by the statute and the First Amendment.' Lemon v. KurtzmanSearch
-
There is, as there was in Meek, a tension between this result and Board of Education v. AllenSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Wolman v. WaltersSearch
-
See Roemer v. MarylandSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial