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.
21 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1993See State v. Johnson, 34 N.J. 212, 223 , 168 A. 2d 1 , cert. denied, 368 U.S. 933 , 82 S.Ct. 370 , 7 L.Ed. 2d 195 (1961); State v. Engel, 249 N.J. 1993See State v. Johnson, 34 N.J. 212, 223 , 168 A. 2d 1 , cert. denied, 368 U.S. 933 , 82 S.Ct. 370 , 7 L.Ed. 2d 195 (1961); State v. Engel, 249 N.J. | 1 | 2 |
Jalowiecki v. Leucgreen1 sentence2025The Court set forth a tripartite test to determine if there is an implied private right of action contained within a statute, explaining: [C]ourts [should] consider whether: (1) [the party asserting the action] is a member of the class for whose special benefit the statute was enacted; (2) there is any evidence that the Legislature intended to create a private right of action under the statute; and (3) it is consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to infer the existence of such a remedy. [Id. at 272.] "Although courts give varying weight to each one of those factors, | 1 | 1 |
Maglies v. Estate of Guygreen1 sentence2020Thus, there was no evidence to support his present allegation that he established a co- tenancy under the tripartite test announced in Maglies v. Estate of Guy, 193 N.J. 108, 126 (2007) (holding a functional co-tenant entitled to protection under the Anti-Eviction Act is "one who can show that [he or] she has been continuously in residence; that [he or] she has been a substantial contributor toward satisfaction of the tenancy's financial obligations; and that [his or] her contribution has been acknowledged and acquiesced to by [his or] her landlord").8 Nor did Pena submit any evidence to suppo | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cartergreen1 sentence2020Citing the tripartite test enunciated by the Court in State v. Carter, 85 N.J. 300, 314 (1981), Judge McBride concluded that Dr. Schwarz's new theory of the cause of Jacqueline's death was merely a "newly[-]formed, self-contradictory opinion[,]" and there was no support for Dr. Schwarz's claim that peer review was unavailable at an earlier time. | 1 | 1 |
Trop v. Dullesgreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 168-187 , 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2922-2932 , 49 L.Ed. 2d 859, 871-883 (1976); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100 , 78 S.Ct. 590, 597-598 , 2 L.Ed. 2d 630, 642 (1958). 2004See, e.g., Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 168-187 , 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2922-2932 , 49 L.Ed. 2d 859, 871-883 (1976); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100 , 78 S.Ct. 590, 597-598 , 2 L.Ed. 2d 630, 642 (1958). | 1 | 1 |
Gregg v. Georgiagreen2 sentences2004See, e.g., Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 168-187 , 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2922-2932 , 49 L.Ed. 2d 859, 871-883 (1976); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100 , 78 S.Ct. 590, 597-598 , 2 L.Ed. 2d 630, 642 (1958). 2004See, e.g., Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 168-187 , 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2922-2932 , 49 L.Ed. 2d 859, 871-883 (1976); Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 100 , 78 S.Ct. 590, 597-598 , 2 L.Ed. 2d 630, 642 (1958). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. New Jerseygreen1 sentence1993See State v. Johnson, 34 N.J. 212, 223 , 168 A. 2d 1 , cert. denied, 368 U.S. 933 , 82 S.Ct. 370 , 7 L.Ed. 2d 195 (1961); State v. Engel, 249 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pillotgreen2 sentences1990See also State v. Pillot, 115 N.J. 558, 564 , 560 A. 2d 634 (1989). 1990See also State v. Pillot, 115 N.J. 558, 564 , 560 A. 2d 634 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
Bellemead Development Corp. v. Schneidergreen1 sentence1986This court, although eschewing reliance on Schmid because the property in question was held not to be devoted to any public use, recently opined that the combination of five of the office buildings of the Meadowlands Corporate Center — a development consisting of at least six office buildings, several warehouses, a motel, an automobile dealer, and an athletic club — were protected against "unwanted expressional activity." Bellemead Development Corp. v. Schneider, 196 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
| Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Regangreen | 1 | 1 |
Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquistgreen2 sentences1981See Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra, 413 U.S. at 773, 93 S.Ct. at 2965 , 37 L.Ed.2d at 963 . 1981See Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra, 413 U.S. at 773, 93 S.Ct. at 2965 , 37 L.Ed.2d at 963 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
RJ Gaydos Ins. Agency v. NAT. CONSUMER INS. CO.
green
2 sentences2025The Court set forth a tripartite test to determine if there is an implied private right of action contained within a statute, explaining: [C]ourts [should] consider whether: (1) [the party asserting the action] is a member of the class for whose special benefit the statute was enacted; (2) there is any evidence that the Legislature intended to create a private right of action under the statute; and (3) it is consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to infer the existence of such a remedy. [Id. at 272.] "Although courts give varying weight to each one of those factors, 2019Thus we examine whether there is an implied private right of action utilizing the tripartite test our Supreme Court adopted in Gaydos, 168 N.J. at 272 . | 3 | 2019–2025 |
State v. Roth
green
2 sentences1990We are satisfied that defendant's sentence for aggravated manslaughter met the tripartite test of State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 363-365 , 471 A. 2d 370 (1984). 1990We are satisfied that defendant's sentence for aggravated manslaughter met the tripartite test of State v. Roth, 95 N.J. 334, 363-365 , 471 A. 2d 370 (1984). | 3 | 1985–1990 |
State v. Schmid
green
2 sentences1995The Chancery judge rejected plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction based on his application of the tripartite test enunciated by our Supreme Court in State v. Schmid, 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615 (1980), appeal dismissed sub. nom Princeton University v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100 , 102 S.Ct. 867 , 70 L.Ed.2d 855 (1982). 1995The Chancery judge rejected plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction based on his application of the tripartite test enunciated by our Supreme Court in State v. Schmid, 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615 (1980), appeal dismissed sub. nom Princeton University v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100 , 102 S.Ct. 867 , 70 L.Ed.2d 855 (1982). | 2 | 1986–1995 |
In Re Kozlov
green
2 sentences1989First, "[t]here must be a legitimate need ... to reach the evidence sought to be shielded." Id. 79 N.J. at 243 , 398 A. 2d 882 . 1989First, "[t]here must be a legitimate need ... to reach the evidence sought to be shielded." Id. 79 N.J. at 243 , 398 A. 2d 882 . | 2 | 1984–1989 |
Williams v. United States
green
2 sentences1977The tripartite test thus put forth in Stovall has been relied upon in later decisions, with strong emphasis on whether “the major purpose of new constitutional doctrine is to overcome an aspect of the criminal trial that substantially impairs its truth-finding function and so raises serious questions about the accuracy of guilty verdicts in past trials * * * .” Williams v. United States, 401 U. S. 646, 653 , 91 S. Ct. 1148, 1152 , 28 L. 1977The tripartite test thus put forth in Stovall has been relied upon in later decisions, with strong emphasis on whether “the major purpose of new constitutional doctrine is to overcome an aspect of the criminal trial that substantially impairs its truth-finding function and so raises serious questions about the accuracy of guilty verdicts in past trials * * * .” Williams v. United States, 401 U. S. 646, 653 , 91 S. Ct. 1148, 1152 , 28 L. | 2 | 1977–1977 |
United States v. Peltier
green
2 sentences1977The tripartite test thus put forth in Stovall has been relied upon in later decisions, with strong emphasis on whether "the major purpose of new constitutional doctrine is to overcome an aspect of the criminal trial that substantially impairs its truth-finding function and so raises serious questions about the accuracy of guilty verdicts in past trials * * *." Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646, 653 , 91 S.Ct. 1148, 1152 , 28 L.Ed. 2d 388 (1971); United States v. Peltier, 422 U.S. 531, 535 , 95 S.Ct. 2313 , 45 L.Ed. 2d 374 (1975). 1977The tripartite test thus put forth in Stovall has been relied upon in later decisions, with strong emphasis on whether "the major purpose of new constitutional doctrine is to overcome an aspect of the criminal trial that substantially impairs its truth-finding function and so raises serious questions about the accuracy of guilty verdicts in past trials * * *." Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646, 653 , 91 S.Ct. 1148, 1152 , 28 L.Ed. 2d 388 (1971); United States v. Peltier, 422 U.S. 531, 535 , 95 S.Ct. 2313 , 45 L.Ed. 2d 374 (1975). | 2 | 1977–1977 |
State v. Behn
green
1 sentence2020The judge A-3879-18T3 4 found that unlike the "detailed, exhaustive affidavit" supplied on PCR by the defendant in State v. Behn, 375 N.J. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Baldassare v. The State Of New Jersey
green
2 sentences2017Because his lawsuit essentially concerns an employment dispute rather than a matter of public concern, plaintiff cannot satisfy the first prong of the tripartite test applicable to his retaliation claim, see Baldassare, supra, 250 F.3d at 194-95 , and therefore fails to support a claim under the NJCRA. 2017He argues the correct analysis of his retaliation claim is a tripartite test enunciated in Baldassare v. New Jersey, 250 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2001), as follows: First, plaintiff must establish the activity in question was protected. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Cooke
green
1 sentence2017State v. Cooke is also instructive. 345 N.J. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
United Jersey Bank v. Wolosoff
green
2 sentences1997Id. at *301 565, 483 A.2d 821 . 1997Id. at *301 565, 483 A.2d 821 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Princeton University v. Schmid
green
2 sentences1995The Chancery judge rejected plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction based on his application of the tripartite test enunciated by our Supreme Court in State v. Schmid, 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615 (1980), appeal dismissed sub. nom Princeton University v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100 , 102 S.Ct. 867 , 70 L.Ed.2d 855 (1982). 1995The Chancery judge rejected plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction based on his application of the tripartite test enunciated by our Supreme Court in State v. Schmid, 84 N.J. 535 , 423 A.2d 615 (1980), appeal dismissed sub. nom Princeton University v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100 , 102 S.Ct. 867 , 70 L.Ed.2d 855 (1982). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Engel
green
1 sentence1993See State v. Johnson, 34 N.J. 212, 223 , 168 A. 2d 1 , cert. denied, 368 U.S. 933 , 82 S.Ct. 370 , 7 L.Ed. 2d 195 (1961); State v. Engel, 249 N.J. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Uston v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc.
green
1 sentence1986The guidelines appear in a tripartite standard: (1) the nature, purposes, and primary use of such private property, generally, its "normal" use, (2) the extent and nature of the public's invitation to use that property, and (3) the purpose of the expressional activity undertaken upon such property in relation to both the private and public use of the property. [ Ibid. ] See State v. Shack, 58 N.J. 297 (1971); cf. Uston v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc., 89 N.J. 163 (1982). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Shack
green
1 sentence1986The guidelines appear in a tripartite standard: (1) the nature, purposes, and primary use of such private property, generally, its "normal" use, (2) the extent and nature of the public's invitation to use that property, and (3) the purpose of the expressional activity undertaken upon such property in relation to both the private and public use of the property. [ Ibid. ] See State v. Shack, 58 N.J. 297 (1971); cf. Uston v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc., 89 N.J. 163 (1982). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Tilton v. Richardson green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Lemon v. Kurtzman
green
2 sentences1981See, e.g., Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646 , 100 S.Ct. 840 , 63 L.Ed.2d 94 (1980); New York v. Cathedral Academy, 434 U.S. 125 , 98 S.Ct. 340 , 54 L.Ed.2d 346 (1977); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229 , 97 S.Ct. 2593 , 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Maryland, 426 U.S. 736 , 96 S.Ct. 2337 , 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349 , 95 S.Ct. 1753 , 44 L.Ed.2d 217 (1975), reh. den. 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed.2d 702 (1975); Committee of Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra; Tilton v. 1981See, e.g., Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646 , 100 S.Ct. 840 , 63 L.Ed. 2d 94 (1980); New York v. Cathedral Academy, 434 U.S. 125 , 98 S.Ct. 340 , 54 L.Ed. 2d 346 (1977); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229 , 97 S.Ct. 2593 , 53 L.Ed. 2d 714 (1977); Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Maryland, 426 U.S. 736 , 96 S.Ct. 2337 , 49 L.Ed. 2d 179 (1976); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349 , 95 S.Ct. 1753 , 44 L.Ed. 2d 217 (1975), reh. den. 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed. 2d 702 (1975); Committee of Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra; Til | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Smith v. District Court of Oklahoma County
green
2 sentences1981See, e.g., Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646 , 100 S.Ct. 840 , 63 L.Ed.2d 94 (1980); New York v. Cathedral Academy, 434 U.S. 125 , 98 S.Ct. 340 , 54 L.Ed.2d 346 (1977); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229 , 97 S.Ct. 2593 , 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Maryland, 426 U.S. 736 , 96 S.Ct. 2337 , 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349 , 95 S.Ct. 1753 , 44 L.Ed.2d 217 (1975), reh. den. 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed.2d 702 (1975); Committee of Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra; Tilton v. 1981See, e.g., Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646 , 100 S.Ct. 840 , 63 L.Ed. 2d 94 (1980); New York v. Cathedral Academy, 434 U.S. 125 , 98 S.Ct. 340 , 54 L.Ed. 2d 346 (1977); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229 , 97 S.Ct. 2593 , 53 L.Ed. 2d 714 (1977); Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Maryland, 426 U.S. 736 , 96 S.Ct. 2337 , 49 L.Ed. 2d 179 (1976); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349 , 95 S.Ct. 1753 , 44 L.Ed. 2d 217 (1975), reh. den. 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed. 2d 702 (1975); Committee of Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra; Til | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Lemon v. Kurtzman
red
2 sentences1981See, e.g., Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646 , 100 S.Ct. 840 , 63 L.Ed.2d 94 (1980); New York v. Cathedral Academy, 434 U.S. 125 , 98 S.Ct. 340 , 54 L.Ed.2d 346 (1977); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229 , 97 S.Ct. 2593 , 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Maryland, 426 U.S. 736 , 96 S.Ct. 2337 , 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349 , 95 S.Ct. 1753 , 44 L.Ed.2d 217 (1975), reh. den. 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed.2d 702 (1975); Committee of Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra; Tilton v. 1981See, e.g., Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646 , 100 S.Ct. 840 , 63 L.Ed.2d 94 (1980); New York v. Cathedral Academy, 434 U.S. 125 , 98 S.Ct. 340 , 54 L.Ed.2d 346 (1977); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229 , 97 S.Ct. 2593 , 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Maryland, 426 U.S. 736 , 96 S.Ct. 2337 , 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349 , 95 S.Ct. 1753 , 44 L.Ed.2d 217 (1975), reh. den. 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed.2d 702 (1975); Committee of Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra; Tilton v. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Meek v. Pittenger green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
New York v. Cathedral Academy
green
2 sentences1981See, e.g., Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646 , 100 S.Ct. 840 , 63 L.Ed.2d 94 (1980); New York v. Cathedral Academy, 434 U.S. 125 , 98 S.Ct. 340 , 54 L.Ed.2d 346 (1977); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229 , 97 S.Ct. 2593 , 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Maryland, 426 U.S. 736 , 96 S.Ct. 2337 , 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349 , 95 S.Ct. 1753 , 44 L.Ed.2d 217 (1975), reh. den. 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed.2d 702 (1975); Committee of Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra; Tilton v. 1981See, e.g., Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646 , 100 S.Ct. 840 , 63 L.Ed.2d 94 (1980); New York v. Cathedral Academy, 434 U.S. 125 , 98 S.Ct. 340 , 54 L.Ed.2d 346 (1977); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229 , 97 S.Ct. 2593 , 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Maryland, 426 U.S. 736 , 96 S.Ct. 2337 , 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349 , 95 S.Ct. 1753 , 44 L.Ed.2d 217 (1975), reh. den. 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed.2d 702 (1975); Committee of Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra; Tilton v. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Meek v. Pittenger
red
2 sentences1981See, e.g., Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646 , 100 S.Ct. 840 , 63 L.Ed.2d 94 (1980); New York v. Cathedral Academy, 434 U.S. 125 , 98 S.Ct. 340 , 54 L.Ed.2d 346 (1977); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229 , 97 S.Ct. 2593 , 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Maryland, 426 U.S. 736 , 96 S.Ct. 2337 , 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349 , 95 S.Ct. 1753 , 44 L.Ed.2d 217 (1975), reh. den. 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed.2d 702 (1975); Committee of Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra; Tilton v. 1981See, e.g., Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646 , 100 S.Ct. 840 , 63 L.Ed.2d 94 (1980); New York v. Cathedral Academy, 434 U.S. 125 , 98 S.Ct. 340 , 54 L.Ed.2d 346 (1977); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229 , 97 S.Ct. 2593 , 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Maryland, 426 U.S. 736 , 96 S.Ct. 2337 , 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349 , 95 S.Ct. 1753 , 44 L.Ed.2d 217 (1975), reh. den. 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed.2d 702 (1975); Committee of Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra; Tilton v. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Md. green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Wolman v. Walter
red
2 sentences1981See, e.g., Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646 , 100 S.Ct. 840 , 63 L.Ed.2d 94 (1980); New York v. Cathedral Academy, 434 U.S. 125 , 98 S.Ct. 340 , 54 L.Ed.2d 346 (1977); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229 , 97 S.Ct. 2593 , 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Maryland, 426 U.S. 736 , 96 S.Ct. 2337 , 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349 , 95 S.Ct. 1753 , 44 L.Ed.2d 217 (1975), reh. den. 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed.2d 702 (1975); Committee of Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra; Tilton v. 1981See, e.g., Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646 , 100 S.Ct. 840 , 63 L.Ed.2d 94 (1980); New York v. Cathedral Academy, 434 U.S. 125 , 98 S.Ct. 340 , 54 L.Ed.2d 346 (1977); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229 , 97 S.Ct. 2593 , 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Maryland, 426 U.S. 736 , 96 S.Ct. 2337 , 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349 , 95 S.Ct. 1753 , 44 L.Ed.2d 217 (1975), reh. den. 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed.2d 702 (1975); Committee of Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra; Tilton v. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.