Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Mcdaniel Vs. Paty

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 19, 1978

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

64 entries 7 linked 57 unlinked
Show
  1. Sherbert Vs. Verner US Supreme Court · Jun 17, 1963
  2. Torcaso Vs. Watkins US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1961
  3. Cantwell Vs. Connecticut US Supreme Court · May 20, 1940
  4. Meek Vs. Pittenger US Supreme Court · May 19, 1975
  5. Zorach Vs. Clauson US Supreme Court · Apr 28, 1952
  6. New York Times Co. Vs. Sullivan US Supreme Court · Mar 09, 1964
  7. Terminiello Vs. Chicago US Supreme Court · May 16, 1949
  8. U.S. 618 (1978) U.S. Supreme Court McDaniel v. Paty
    Search
  9. U.S. 618 (1978) McDaniel v. Paty
    Search
  10. is inapposite here. Torcaso v. Watkins
    Search
  11. it conditions his right to the free exercise of his religion on the surrender of his right to seek office. Sherbert v. Verner
    Search
  12. establishes a religious classification governing eligibility for office that is absolutely prohibited. Torcaso v. Watkins
    Search
  13. primary effect of inhibiting religion. Pp. 435 U. S. 636 -642. MR. JUSTICE STEWART concluded that Torcaso v. Watkins
    Search
  14. s provision violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments' guarantees of the free exercise of religion. Kirkley v. Maryland
    Search
  15. other similar religious functions, or, in other words, to be a minister of the type McDaniel was found to be. Murdock v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  16. supra at 310 U. S. 304 . In Torcaso v. Watkins
    Search
  17. enjoy significant First Amendment protection. The Court Page 435 U. S. 628 recently declared, in Wisconsin v. Yoder
    Search
  18. pitting one against the others, contrary to the anti-establishment principle with its command of neutrality. See Walz v. Tax
    Search
  19. prohibitions on handling venomous snakes or drinking poison, even as part of a religious ceremony, State ex rel. Swann v. Pack
    Search
  20. State v. Massey
    Search
  21. N.C. 734, 51 S.E.2d 179, appeal dismissed for want of substantial federal question sub nom. Bunn v. North
    Search
  22. U.S. 942 (1949), but have precluded the application of criminal sanctions to the religious use of peyote, People v. Woody
    Search
  23. Oliver v. Udall
    Search
  24. issue), or the religiously impelled refusal to comply with mandatory education laws past the eighth grade, Wisconsin v. Yoder
    Search
  25. of the general nature of free exercise protections and the delicate balancing required by our decisions in Sherbert v. Verner
    Search
  26. U. S. 398 (1963), and Wisconsin v. Yoder
    Search
  27. the ministry as much establishes a religious test as one which disqualifies Catholics, or Jews, or Protestants. Wieman v. Updegraff
    Search
  28. establishes as a condition of office the willingness to eschew certain protected religious practices, Torcaso v. Watkins
    Search
  29. but merely conditions eligibility for office on its abandonment -- is also squarely rejected by precedent. In Sherbert v. Verner
    Search
  30. and, in sum, has a primary effect which inhibits religion. See Everson v. Board
    Search
  31. McCollum v. Board
    Search
  32. the Fourteenth Amendment, the strictures of the First Amendment became wholly applicable to the States, see Cantwell v. Connecticut
    Search
  33. Everson v. Board
    Search
  34. U. S. 270 (1964). Government may not interfere with efforts to proselyte or worship in public places. Kunz v. New
    Search
  35. York, 340 U. S. 290 (1951). It may not tax the dissemination of religious ideas. Murdock v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  36. It may not seek to shield its citizens from those who would solicit them with their religious beliefs. Martin v. City
    Search
  37. Terminiello v. Chicago
    Search
  38. Walz v. Tax
    Search
  39. of their status as such, as subversive of American ideals, and therefore subject to unique disabilities. Cf. Wieman v. Updegraff
    Search
  40. statements regarding religion, or question whether their legislative actions stem from religious conviction. Cf. Bond v. Floyd
    Search
  41. Abington School Dist, v. Schempp
    Search
  42. U. S. 398 , 374 U. S. 403 (1963) (citations omitted), in part quoting Braunfeld v. Brown
    Search
  43. U.S. Supreme Court McDaniel v. Paty
    Search
  44. Kirkley v. Maryland
    Search
  45. Murdock v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  46. In Torcaso v. Watkins
    Search
  47. Wisconsin v. Yoder
    Search
  48. See Walz v. Tax
    Search
  49. Swann v. Pack
    Search
  50. Bunn v. North
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial