Wallace, Governor of Alabama, Et Al. v. Jaffree Et Al.; & Smith Et Al. v. Jaffree Et Al., 466 U.S. 924 (1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Wallace, Governor of Alabama, Et Al. v. Jaffree Et Al.; & Smith Et Al. v. Jaffree Et Al., 466 U.S. 924 (1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
67 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Chandler v. Siegelman (ca11, 2001-04-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" Chandler v. Siegelman
11th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jaffree v. Wallace, 466 U.S. 924 (1984); Jaffree v.Wallace, 472 U.S. 38 (1985). 3 The relevant portion of the stricken statute reads: "(b) On public school, other public, or other property, non-sectarian, non- proselytizing student-initiated voluntary prayer, invocation and/or benedictions, shall be permitted during compulsory or non-compulsory school-related student assemblies, school-related student sporting events, school-related graduation or commencement ceremonies, and other school- related student events." Ala.Code 16-1-20.3(b) (1995).
discussed Cited "see" Chandler v. Siegelman (2×)
11th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wallace v. Jaffree, 466 U.S. 924 , 104 S.Ct. 1704 , 80 L.Ed.2d 178 (1984); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 , 105 S.Ct. 2479 , 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985). .
cited Cited "see" Chandler v. Siegleman
11th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jaffree v. Wallace, 466 U.S. 924 (1984); Jaffree v.Wallace, 472 U.S. 38 (1985). 3 related assemblies and sporting events, or at a graduation ceremony.” Chandler I, 180 F.3d at 1257 .
discussed Cited "see" Chandler v. Siegleman (2×)
11th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wallace v. Jaffree, 466 U.S. 924 , 104 S.Ct. 1704 , 80 L.Ed.2d 178 (1984); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 , 105 S.Ct. 2479 , 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985). the rights of secondary-school students to engage in religious activity during noninstructional time that is consistent with the federal Equal Access Act, 20 U.S.C.
discussed Cited "see" The American Civil Liberties Union Of New Jersey v. Black Horse Pike Regional Board Of Education (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jaffree v. Wallace, 705 F.2d 1526, 1534-35 (11th Cir.) ("The primary effect of prayer is the advancement of one's religious beliefs."), reh'g denied, 713 F.2d 614 (11th Cir.1983), aff'd, 466 U.S. 924 , 104 S.Ct. 1704 , 80 L.Ed.2d 178 (1984).
examined Cited "see" American Civil Liberties Union v. Black Horse Pike Regional Board of Education (3×)
3rd Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jaffree v. Wallace, 705 F.2d 1526, 1534-35 (11th Cir.) (“The primary effect of prayer is the advancement of one’s religious beliefs.”), reh’g denied, 713 F.2d 614 (11th Cir.1983), aff'd, 466 U.S. 924 , 104 S.Ct. 1704 , 80 L.Ed.2d 178 (1984).
discussed Cited "see" May v. Cooperman (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wallace v. Jaffree, 466 U.S. 924 , 104 S.Ct. 1704 , 80 L.Ed.2d 178 aff'g, 705 F.2d 1526 (11th Cir.1983). 63 Another Alabama statute discussed in Wallace v. Jaffree provides, 64 At the commencement of the first class each day in the first through sixth grades in all public schools, the teacher in charge of the room in which each such class is held shall announce that a period of silence, not to exceed one minute in duration, shall be observed for meditation, and during any such period silence shall be maintained and no activities shall be engaged in. 65 Alabama Code Sec. 16-1-20 (Supp.1984)…
discussed Cited "see" May v. Cooperman (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See Wallace v. Jaffree, 466 U.S. 924 , 104 S.Ct. 1704 , 80 L.Ed.2d 178 aff'g, 705 F.2d 1526 (11th Cir.1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Breen v. Runkel
W.D. Mich. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. §§ 380.-1-380.703 (Supp.1985); see also Jaffree v. Wallace, 705 F.2d 1526 (1983), aff'd mem. (with respect to this issue), — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 1704 -05, 80 L.Ed.2d 178 (1984), aff'd (on other issues), — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 2479 , 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Michael Hardwick v. Michael Bowers
11th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
Rand, Ltd., 460 U.S. 533 , 103 S.Ct. 1343 , 75 L.Ed.2d 260 (1983); see also Jaffree v. Wallace, 705 F.2d 1526, 1532-33 (11th Cir.1983), appeal filed on other grounds, 52 U.S.L.W. 3441 (U.S. Nov. 14, 1983) (No. 83-812), 52 U.S.L.W. 3473 (U.S. Dec. 3, 1983) (No. 83-929), probable jurisdiction noted, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1704 , 80 L.Ed.2d 178 (1984). 12 III. 56 Whatever our personal views about the constitutionality of a law that permits the state to regulate the most private of human behavior within the confines of the home, unless and until the Supreme Court clearly indicates otherwise, we …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hardwick v. Bowers
11th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
Rand, Ltd., 460 U.S. 533 , 103 S.Ct. 1343 , 75 L.Ed.2d 260 (1983); see also Jaffree v. Wallace, 705 F.2d 1526, 1532-33 (11th Cir.1983), appeal filed on other grounds, 52 U.S.L.W. 3441 (U.S. Nov. 14, 1983) (No. 83-812), 52 U.S.L.W. 3473 (U.S. Dec. 3, 1983) (No. 83-929), probable jurisdiction noted, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 1704 , 80 L.Ed.2d 178 (1984). 12 III.
George C. Wallace, Governor of the State of Alabama
v.
Ishmael Jaffree Douglas T. Smith v. Ishmael Jaffree
83-812; 83-929.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 2, 1984.
466 U.S. 924
Stevens.
Cited by 24 opinions  |  Published
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

In these cases probable jurisdiction is noted limited to Question 1 in the jurisdictional statements. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. The judgment with respect to the other issues presented by the appeals is affirmed.

Justice STEVENS, concurring.

Lead Opinion

Appeals from C. A. 11th Cir. Probable jurisdiction noted limited to Question 1 in the jurisdictional statements, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour allotted for oral argument. The judgment with respect to the other issues presented by the appeals is affirmed. Reported below: 705 F. 2d 1526 and 713 F. 2d 614.

Concurrence

Justice Stevens,

concurring.

In their amended complaint in this litigation, appellees sought (1) a judgment holding three statutory provisions, Ala. Code §§ 16-1-20, 16-1-20.1,16-1-20.2 (Supp. 1983), and certain allegedly state-sanctioned, though not statutorily sanctioned, school prayer practices invalid under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, and (2) an injunction against the enforcement of these statutory provisions and nonstatutory practices. The District Court dismissed the amended complaint. 554 F. Supp. 1104 (SD Ala. 1983). The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s judgment in relevant part. 705 F. 2d 1526 (CA11 1983). It held the challenged statutory provisions and nonstatutory practices unconstitutional and ordered the District Court to enter an injunction. Appellants[*925] invoke this Court’s appellate jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(2) regarding the Court of Appeals’ judgments on the statutory provisions.

As I understand it, the order this Court enters today is a holding that Ala. Code § 16-1-20.2 (Supp. 1983) is invalid as repugnant to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, the Court’s order also affirms the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it directed the District Court to enjoin the appellants from enforcing § 16-1-20.2. The judgment of the Court of Appeals concerning the nonstatutory school prayer practices is not within the appellate jurisdiction of this Court and is challenged in a petition for a writ of certiorari in Board of School Comm’rs of Mobile County v. Jaffree, No. 83-804. The Court denies that petition, post, p. 926.

The Court’s order noting probable jurisdiction is thus limited to the judgment of the Court of Appeals concerning the constitutionality of § 16-1-20.1. Appellants frame the constitutional questions presented by that provision as follows:

“Whether a state statute which permits, but does not require, teachers in public schools to observe up to a minute of non-activity for meditation or silent prayer has the predominant effect of advancing students’ liberty of religion and of mind rather than any effect of establishing a religion.” Juris. Statement in No. 83-812, p. i.
“Does a moment of silence for individual silent ‘prayer or meditation’ at the beginning of each school day in a public school classroom violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as interpreted by its language, framers’ intent, and history?” Juris. Statement in No. 83-929, p. i.

On the understanding that the Court has limited argument to the question whether §16-1-20.1 is invalid as repugnant to the Establishment Clause, applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, I join the Court’s order.