Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Massachusetts opinions name it 3 courts 1994–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Escobar v. Continental Baking Co.green1 sentence2022This is akin to a defense of "coming to the nuisance." Escobar v. Continental Baking Co., 33 Mass. App. Ct. 104, 110 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
Shedlock v. Department of Correctiongreen2 sentences2006In Rasheed v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, we determined that prison regulations and policies limiting quantities of prayer oil and permitting inmates the use of only a prayer towel rather than a prayer rug did not violate the Massachusetts Constitution. 7 For the same reasons, we conclude that they do not violate RLUIPA. 2006While RLUIPA holds the government to a higher standard than that required in the Turner case with respect to the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment, that standard is consistent with the stricter standard we adopted in Rasheed v. Commissioner of Correction, supra at 472-475. 6 In other words, if the prison regulations and policies challenged by Ahmad are permissible under the Massachusetts Constitution, they will meet the requirements of RLUIPA. | 1 | 1 |
Attorney General v. Desiletsgreen1 sentence1997If such a burden exists, it can only be upheld utilizing the “balancing test that the Supreme Court has established under the free exercise of religion clause in Wisconsin v. Yoder." Id. at 321. | 1 | 1 |
Wisconsin v. Yodergreen2 sentences1994In each opinion, we used the balancing test that the Supreme Court had established under the free exercise of religion clause in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-229 (1972), *322 Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 388 , 406-409 (1963), and subsequent opinions. 1994In each opinion, we used the balancing test that the Supreme Court had established under the free exercise of religion clause in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-229 (1972), Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 388 , 406-409 (1963), and subsequent opinions. | 1 | 1 |
Alberts v. Devinegreen2 sentences1994See Alberts v. Devine, supra at 73-74 ; Attorney Gen. v. Bailey, supra at 375. 1994See Alberts v. Devine, supra at 73-74 ; Attorney Gen. v. Bailey, supra at 375. | 1 | 1 |
Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local 70 v. California Trucking Ass'ngreen2 sentences1994See Alberts v. Devine, supra at 73-74 ; Attorney Gen. v. Bailey, supra at 375. 1994See Alberts v. Devine, supra at 73-74 ; Attorney Gen. v. Bailey, supra at 375. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Spratt v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections
green
1 sentence2009“While RLUIPA holds the government to a higher standard than that required in [Turner v. Safley] with respect to the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment, [the RLUIPA] standard is consistent with the stricter standard adopted in Rasheed.” Id. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith
red
2 sentences1994Indeed, after the release of our Nissenbaum opinion, the Supreme Court substantially altered its standard for determining whether conduct was protected under the free exercise of religion clause by its decision in Employment Div., Dep't of Human Resources of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), a much criticized opinion that weakened First Amendment protections for religious conduct. 1994Indeed, after the release of our Nissenbaum opinion, the Supreme Court substantially altered its standard for determining whether conduct was protected under the free exercise of religion clause by its decision in Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Resources of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), a much criticized opinion that weakened First Amendment protections for religious conduct. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.