green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.7 score
“our only task is to determine whether the claimant's belief is sincere, and if so, whether the government has applied substantial pressure on the claimant to violate that belief.”
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Legatus v. Sebelius
our only task is to determine whether the claimant's belief is sincere, and if so, whether the government has applied substantial pressure on the claimant to violate that belief.
discussed
Cited "see"
Ave Maria Foundation v. Sebelius
See Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1143-44 (10th Cir.2013) (en banc), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 678 , 187 L.Ed.2d 544 ; Gilardi v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 733 F.3d 1208, 1222 (D.C.Cir.2013) (Opinion of Brown, J.); Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sec’y of U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 724 F.3d 377, 414 (3d Cir.2013) (Jordan, J., dissenting), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 678 , — L.Ed.2d -.
discussed
Cited "see"
East Texas Baptist University v. Sebelius
See Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir.2013), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 678 , 187 L.Ed.2d 544 (2013); Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Secretary of U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 724 F.3d 377 (3d Cir.2013), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 134 S.Ct. 678 , 187 L.Ed.2d 544 (2013); see also Gilardi v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 733 F.3d 1208 (D.C.Cir.2013); Korte v. Sebelius, 735 F.3d 654 (7th Cir.2013). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Oklahoma American Legion Corp. v. American Legion
Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 , 129 S.Ct. 365 , 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008); Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. v. Stidham, 640 F.3d 1140, 1157 (10th Cir.2011); see also Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1128 (10th Cir.), cert. granted, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 678 , 187 L.Ed.2d 544 (2013).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Klayman v. Obama
Area Transit Auth., 898 F.Supp.2d 73, 84 (D.D.C. 2012) (quoting G & V Lounge, Inc. v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm’n, 23 F.3d 1071 , 1079 (6th Cir.1994)); see also Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114, 1145 (10th Cir.2013) (same), cert. granted, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 678 , 187 L.Ed.2d 544 , 2013 WL 5297798 (2013); Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th Cir.2012) (same); Nat’l Fed’n of Fed.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
v.
EME HOMER CITY GENERATION, L.P.
v.
EME HOMER CITY GENERATION, L.P.
No. 12–1182..
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 26, 2013.
Motion of respondents for divided argument granted.
Consideration, Motion, Took.
Published
Citer courts: E.D. Michigan (1)
Justice ALITO took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.