Citation network
Larson Vs. Valente
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 21, 1982
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. 228 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Larson v. ValenteSearch
-
U.S. 228 (1982) Larson v. ValenteSearch
-
appellees' freedom to exercise their religious beliefs. Appellants sought to distinguish the present case from Murdock v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
set forth by this Court in Lemon v. KurtzmanSearch
-
Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's application of the overbreadth doctrine, citing Village of Schaumburg v. CitizensSearch
-
Duke Power Co. v. CarolinaSearch
-
Environmental Study Group, 438 U. S. 59 , 438 U. S. 72 (1978), quoting Baker v. CarrSearch
-
Duke Power Co., supra at 438 U. S. 72 , quoting Warth v. SeldinSearch
-
Duke Power Co., supra at 438 U. S. 72 , quoting Arlinton Heights v. MetropolitanSearch
-
subd. 1(b)'s fifty percent rule. See Arlington Heights v. MetropolitanSearch
-
record, it does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to hear the present case. Cf. Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed. v. DoyleSearch
-
or narrow construction of a statutory exemption for religious organizations is not favored. Washington Ethical Society v. DistrictSearch
-
Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. NewSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
York, 336 U. S. 106 , 336 U. S. 112 (1949) (concurring opinion). Since Everson v. BoardSearch
-
at 330 U. S. 15 . This principle of denominational neutrality has been restated on many occasions. In Zorach v. ClausonSearch
-
Id. at 343 U. S. 314 . In Epperson v. ArkansasSearch
-
Id. at 393 U. S. 104 , 393 U. S. 106 , citing Abington School District v. SchemppSearch
-
U. S. 247 that rule must be invalidated unless it is justified by a compelling governmental interest, cf. Widmar v. VincentSearch
-
U. S. 263 , 454 U. S. 269 -270 (1981), and unless it is closely fitted to further that interest, Murdock v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
C In Lemon v. KurtzmanSearch
-
second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. AllenSearch
-
Id. at 403 U. S. 612 -613. As our citations of Board of Education v. AllenSearch
-
U. S. 236 (1968), and Walz v. TaxSearch
-
Comm'n, 397 U. S. 664 (1970), indicated, the Lemon v. KurtzmanSearch
-
Gillette v. UnitedSearch
-
It is applied to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Cantwell v. ConnecticutSearch
-
Simon v. EasternSearch
-
Arlington Heights v. MetropolitanSearch
-
He need not show that a favorable decision will relieve his every injury. Cf. University of California Regents v. BakkeSearch
-
Brief for Appellants 20. They accordingly cite McGowan v. MarylandSearch
-
U. S. 420 (1961), and cases following Everson v. BoardSearch
-
wholly inapplicable here. Appellants also argue that reversal of the Court of Appeals is required by Gillette v. UnitedSearch
-
Rescue Army v. MunicipalSearch
-
See Washington Ethical Society v. DistrictSearch
-
Rescue Army v. MunicipalSearch
-
Ashwander v. TVASearch
-
I have no reservations about the wisdom or importance of this policy. See, e.g., California ex rel. Cooper v. MitchellSearch
-
Minnick v. CaliforniaSearch
-
University of California Regents v. BakkeSearch
-
is nevertheless an important interest in avoiding litigation of issues relating to church doctrine. See United States v. LeeSearch
-
U. S. 252 , 455 U. S. 263 , n. 2 (STEVENS, J., concurring in judgment). Cf. NLRB v. CatholicSearch
-
this action on the ground that the limitation could not pass muster under the second criterion set down in Lemon v. KurtzmanSearch
-
others. Page 456 U. S. 260 In this Court, the case is given still another treatment. The Lemon v. KurtzmanSearch
-
Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdorySearch
-
F.2d 562, 565 (CA8 1981) (quoting Village of Schaumburg v. CitizensSearch
-
of a distinct and palpable injury. Ibid. See also Gladstone, Page 456 U. S. 269 Realtors v. VillageSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Larson v. ValenteSearch
-
Murdock v. PennsylvaniaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial