Citation network
Agostini Vs. Felton
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 15, 1997
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. 203 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Agostini Et Al. V. FeltonSearch
-
In Aguilar v. FeltonSearch
-
complying with Aguilar and the assertions of five Justices in Board of Ed. of Kiryas Joel Village School Dist. v. GrumetSearch
-
S. 687 , that Aguilar should be reconsidered, and argued that relief was proper under Rule 60(b)(5) and Rufo v. InmatesSearch
-
I program. Accordingly, Aguilar, as well as that portion of its companion case, School Dist. of Grand Rapids v. BallSearch
-
Together with No. 96-553, Chancellor, Board of Education of the City of New York, et al. v. FeltonSearch
-
Michigan, Shared Time program, which is analogous to New York City's Title I program. Applying the three-part Lemon v. KurtzmanSearch
-
inculcate religion or that their presence constitutes a symbolic union between government and religion. Zobrest v. CatalinaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
s rule that all government aid that directly aids the educational function of religious schools is invalid. Witters v. WashingtonSearch
-
basis. Under such circumstances, the aid is less likely to have the effect of advancing religion. See Widmar v. VincentSearch
-
is considered in the course of assessing if a program has an impermissible effect of advancing religion, Walz v. TaxSearch
-
failed to find excessive entanglement in cases involving far more onerous burdens on religious institutions. See Bowen v. KendrickSearch
-
Aguilar and those portions of Ball that are inconsistent with its more recent decisions. E. g., United States v. GaudinSearch
-
such that the law of the case doctrine does not apply. Accord, Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
Court's general practice is to apply the rule of law it is announcing to the parties before it, Rodriguez de Quijas v. ShearsSearch
-
Express, Inc., 490 U. S. 477 , 485, even when it is overruling a case, e. g., Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. PenaSearch
-
filed a brief for respondents Felton et al. t JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court. In Aguilar v. FeltonSearch
-
of the private schools within the Board's jurisdiction are sectarian, Felton v. SecretarySearch
-
onto private school 211 campuses, as Congress had contemplated when it enacted Title 1. See Wheeler v. BarreraSearch
-
After this program also yielded mixed results, the Board implemented the plan we evaluated in Aguilar v. FeltonSearch
-
F. 2d, at 72, the Court of Appeals nevertheless held that Meek v. PittengerSearch
-
U. S. 349 (1975), and Wolman v. WalterSearch
-
our decision in Aguilar. Petitioners argued that relief was proper under Rule 60(b)(5) and our decision in Rufo v. InmatesSearch
-
petitioners pointed to the statements of five Justices in Board of Ed. of Kiryas Joel Village School Dist. v. GrumetSearch
-
In Rufo v. InmatesSearch
-
A court may recognize subsequent changes in either statutory or decisional law. See Railway Employees v. WrightSearch
-
b)(5) motion and remanding so District Court could consider whether consent decree should be modified in light of Bell v. WolfishSearch
-
U. S. 424 , 437-438 (1976) (injunction should have been vacated in light of Swann v. Charlotte-MecklenburgSearch
-
and Aguilar has in any event been undermined by subsequent Establishment Clause decisions, including Witters v. WashingtonSearch
-
Dept. of Servs. for Blind, 474 U. S. 481 (1986), Zobrest v. CatalinaSearch
-
Foothills School Dist., 509 U. S. 1 (1993), and Rosenberger v. RectorSearch
-
to understand the rationale upon which Aguilar, as well as its companion case, School Dist. of Grand Rapids v. BallSearch
-
Id., at 379. The Court conducted its analysis by applying the threepart test set forth in Lemon v. KurtzmanSearch
-
in at least three ways. Ibid. First, drawing upon the analysis in Meek v. PittengerSearch
-
Id., at 372. Cf. Wolman v. WalterSearch
-
id., at 391 (quoting Zorach v. ClausonSearch
-
Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. MergensSearch
-
cf. Edwards v. AguillardSearch
-
effect of state-sponsored indoctrination or constitutes a symbolic union between government and religion. In Zobrest v. CatalinaSearch
-
that all government aid that directly assists the educational function of religious schools is invalid. In Witters v. WashingtonSearch
-
nature of the institution benefited.''' Id., at 487 (quoting Committee for Public Ed. & Religious Liberty v. NyquistSearch
-
to inculcate religion in stu- 227 dents. National Coalition for Public Ed. & Religious Liberty v. HarrisSearch
-
Felton v. SecretarySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial