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.
7 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1958–2007 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan 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 |
|---|---|---|
Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfsidegreen1 sentence2006As the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has remarked, “In determining whether RLUIPA is an appropriate exercise of Congress’s § 5 power,” a court “must first determine whether Congress has the authority to enact legislation to enforce the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.” Midrash Sephardi, Inc v Town of Surfside, 366 F3d 1214, 1237 (CA 11, 2004). | 1 | 1 |
David L. Canedy, Jr. v. Officer Peggy Boardman, Warden Jeffrey Endicott, Karen Radtke, and John Bellgreen2 sentences1995I echo the concerns of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Canedy v Boardman, 16 F3d 183, 186, n 2 (CA 7, 1994), where the court stated: The constitutionality of [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993] — surely not before us here — raises a number of questions involving the extent of Congress’s powers under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. 1995The act directs that it be applied retroactively. 42 USC 2000bb-3(a). [1] I echo the concerns of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Canedy v Boardman, 16 F3d 183, 186, n 2 (CA 7, 1994), where the court stated: The constitutionality of [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993] — surely not before us here — raises a number of questions involving the extent of Congress's powers under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. | 1 | 1 |
Katzenbach v. Morgangreen2 sentences1995See generally Katzenbach v Morgan, 384 US 641 ; 86 S Ct 1717 ; 16 L Ed 2d 828 (1966); Robert A. Burt, Miranda and Title II: A Morganic Marriage, 1969 S Ct Rev 81; Archibald Cox, The Role of Congress in Constitutional Determinations, 40 U Cinn L Rev 199 (1971); William Cohen, Congressional Power to Interpret Due Process and Equal Protection, 27 Stan L Rev 603 (1975); Comment, When the Supreme Court Restricts Constitutional Rights, Can Congress Save Us? 1995See generally Katzenbach v Morgan, 384 US 641 ; 86 S Ct 1717 ; 16 L Ed 2d 828 (1966); Robert A. Burt, Miranda and Title II: A Morganic Marriage, 1969 S Ct Rev 81; Archibald Cox, The Role of Congress in Constitutional Determinations, 40 U Cinn L Rev 199 (1971); William Cohen, Congressional Power to Interpret Due Process and Equal Protection, 27 Stan L Rev 603 (1975); Comment, When the Supreme Court Restricts Constitutional Rights, Can Congress Save Us? | 1 | 1 |
City of Richfield v. Local No. 1215, International Ass'n of Fire Fightersgreen1 sentence1980See Richfield v Local No 1215, International Ass'n of Fire Fighters, 276 NW2d 42, 47 (Minn, 1979). [50] See fns 31 and 49, supra. [51] See City of Warwick v Warwick Regular Firemen's Ass'n, 106 RI 109, 114-115; 256 A2d 206, 209 (1969). [52] See fn 49, supra. [53] MCL 423.3; MSA 17.454(3); MCL 423.4; MSA 17.454(4). [54] The city contends, in part, that exercise of the § 5 peremptory strike of each § 4 delegate against the MERC nominees is no more than a hollow contrivance aimed at sustaining the impression that the alleged accountability deficiencies of the original scheme have been eradicated | 1 | 1 |
City of Warwick v. Warwick Regular Firemen's Ass'n.green1 sentence1980See Richfield v Local No 1215, International Ass'n of Fire Fighters, 276 NW2d 42, 47 (Minn, 1979). [50] See fns 31 and 49, supra. [51] See City of Warwick v Warwick Regular Firemen's Ass'n, 106 RI 109, 114-115; 256 A2d 206, 209 (1969). [52] See fn 49, supra. [53] MCL 423.3; MSA 17.454(3); MCL 423.4; MSA 17.454(4). [54] The city contends, in part, that exercise of the § 5 peremptory strike of each § 4 delegate against the MERC nominees is no more than a hollow contrivance aimed at sustaining the impression that the alleged accountability deficiencies of the original scheme have been eradicated | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Boerne v. Flores
yellow
2 sentences2007However, in City of Boerne v Flores, 521 US 507 ; 117 S Ct 2157 ; 138 L Ed 2d 624 (1997), the United States Supreme Court held that Congress, in enacting RFRA, had exceeded its powers under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact legislation enforcing the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because RFRA proscribes state conduct that the First Amendment itself does not proscribe. 3 123 The Court explained: Congress’ power under § 5, however, extends only to “enforcing” the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2007However, in City of Boerne v Flores, 521 US 507 ; 117 S Ct 2157 ; 138 L Ed 2d 624 (1997), the United States Supreme Court held that Congress, in enacting RFRA, had exceeded its powers under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to enact legislation enforcing the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because RFRA proscribes state conduct that the First Amendment itself does not proscribe. 3 123 The Court explained: Congress’ power under § 5, however, extends only to “enforcing” the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Ex Parte Young
red
2 sentences1987Though a § 1983 action may be instituted by public aid recipients such as respondent, a federal court’s remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief, Ex parte Young, [ 209 US 123 ; 28 S Ct 441 ; 52 L Ed 714 (1908)], and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury, Ford Motor Co v Dep’t of Treasury, [ 323 US 459 ; 65 S Ct 347 ; 89 L Ed 389 (1945)]. [Edelman, supra at 675-677 .] Fitzpatrick v Bitzer, 427 US 445 ; 96 S Ct 2666 ; 49 L Ed 2d 614 (1976), added yet another aspect to 1987Though a § 1983 action may be instituted by public aid recipients such as respondent, a federal court’s remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief, Ex parte Young, [ 209 US 123 ; 28 S Ct 441 ; 52 L Ed 714 (1908)], and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury, Ford Motor Co v Dep’t of Treasury, [ 323 US 459 ; 65 S Ct 347 ; 89 L Ed 389 (1945)]. [Edelman, supra at 675-677 .] Fitzpatrick v Bitzer, 427 US 445 ; 96 S Ct 2666 ; 49 L Ed 2d 614 (1976), added yet another aspect to | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury
red
2 sentences1987Though a § 1983 action may be instituted by public aid recipients such as respondent, a federal court’s remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief, Ex parte Young, [ 209 US 123 ; 28 S Ct 441 ; 52 L Ed 714 (1908)], and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury, Ford Motor Co v Dep’t of Treasury, [ 323 US 459 ; 65 S Ct 347 ; 89 L Ed 389 (1945)]. [Edelman, supra at 675-677 .] Fitzpatrick v Bitzer, 427 US 445 ; 96 S Ct 2666 ; 49 L Ed 2d 614 (1976), added yet another aspect to 1987Though a § 1983 action may be instituted by public aid recipients such as respondent, a federal court’s remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief, Ex parte Young, [ 209 US 123 ; 28 S Ct 441 ; 52 L Ed 714 (1908)], and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury, Ford Motor Co v Dep’t of Treasury, [ 323 US 459 ; 65 S Ct 347 ; 89 L Ed 389 (1945)]. [Edelman, supra at 675-677 .] Fitzpatrick v Bitzer, 427 US 445 ; 96 S Ct 2666 ; 49 L Ed 2d 614 (1976), added yet another aspect to | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer
green
2 sentences1987Though a § 1983 action may be instituted by public aid recipients such as respondent, a federal court’s remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief, Ex parte Young, [ 209 US 123 ; 28 S Ct 441 ; 52 L Ed 714 (1908)], and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury, Ford Motor Co v Dep’t of Treasury, [ 323 US 459 ; 65 S Ct 347 ; 89 L Ed 389 (1945)]. [Edelman, supra at 675-677 .] Fitzpatrick v Bitzer, 427 US 445 ; 96 S Ct 2666 ; 49 L Ed 2d 614 (1976), added yet another aspect to 1987Though a § 1983 action may be instituted by public aid recipients such as respondent, a federal court’s remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief, Ex parte Young, [ 209 US 123 ; 28 S Ct 441 ; 52 L Ed 714 (1908)], and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury, Ford Motor Co v Dep’t of Treasury, [ 323 US 459 ; 65 S Ct 347 ; 89 L Ed 389 (1945)]. [Edelman, supra at 675-677 .] Fitzpatrick v Bitzer, 427 US 445 ; 96 S Ct 2666 ; 49 L Ed 2d 614 (1976), added yet another aspect to | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Edelman v. Jordan
red
2 sentences1987Though a § 1983 action may be instituted by public aid recipients such as respondent, a federal court's remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief, Ex parte Young, [ 209 US 123 ; 28 S Ct 441 ; 52 L Ed 714 (1908)], and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury, Ford Motor Co v Dep't of Treasury, [ 323 US 459 ; 65 S Ct 347 ; 89 L Ed 389 (1945)]. [ Edelman, supra at 675-677 .] Fitzpatrick v Bitzer, 427 US 445 ; 96 S Ct 2666 ; 49 L Ed 2d 614 (1976), added yet another aspect to 1987Though a § 1983 action may be instituted by public aid recipients such as respondent, a federal court’s remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunctive relief, Ex parte Young, [ 209 US 123 ; 28 S Ct 441 ; 52 L Ed 714 (1908)], and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury, Ford Motor Co v Dep’t of Treasury, [ 323 US 459 ; 65 S Ct 347 ; 89 L Ed 389 (1945)]. [Edelman, supra at 675-677 .] Fitzpatrick v Bitzer, 427 US 445 ; 96 S Ct 2666 ; 49 L Ed 2d 614 (1976), added yet another aspect to | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Oakland County v. State Land Office Board
neutral
1 sentence1958However, in view" of the holding in * * * [Oakland County v. State Land Office Board, supra], we cannot see why one redeeming through a municipality under section 5 of the 1939 act would he entitled to any better deed, than the municipality itself could have procured from the State. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
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.