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.
13 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1983–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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 |
|---|---|---|
Locke v. Daveygreen2 sentences2024See, e.g., Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 , 720 n.3, 124 S. Page 28 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 30 ,0 0 Conn. 1 Spillane v. Lamont Ct. 1307, 158 L. 2024See, e.g., Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 , 720 n.3, 124 S. Page 28 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 30 ,0 0 Conn. 1 Spillane v. Lamont Ct. 1307, 158 L. | 2 | 2 |
Cantwell v. Connecticutgreen2 sentences2024Although Jacobson was decided before the free exercise clause was held to apply to the states; see Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 , 60 S. Ct. 900 , 84 L. 2024Although Jacobson was decided before the free exercise clause was held to apply to the states; see Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303 , 60 S. Ct. 900 , 84 L. | 2 | 2 |
Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smithred2 sentences2024We agree with the Second Circuit’s analysis of the free exercise claim and adopt it as our own as it pertains to the plaintiffs’ arguments in the present case.7 In Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 , 110 S. Ct. 1595 , 108 L. 2024We agree with the Second Circuit’s analysis of the free exercise claim and adopt it as our own as it pertains to the plaintiffs’ arguments in the present case.7 In Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 , 110 S. Ct. 1595 , 108 L. | 1 | 4 |
Perez v. Commissioner of Correctiongreen2 sentences2010“Under both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause, the first amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving disputed issues of religious doctrine and practice.” Id., 880. 2006This court concluded that “[ujnder both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause, the first amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving disputed issues of religious doctrine and practice.” Id. | 1 | 2 |
Thibodeau v. American Baptist Churchesgreen1 sentence2023Under both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause, the first amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving disputed issues of religious doctrine and practice.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Thibodeau v. American Baptist Churches of Connecticut, supra, 671. ‘‘Under [the] excessive entanglement analy- sis . . . claims requiring courts to review and to inter- pret religious doctrine and practices are barred by the first amendment.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.; see Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese of the United States & Canada v. Milivojevich, | 1 | 1 |
Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v. Milivojevichgreen2 sentences2023Under both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause, the first amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving disputed issues of religious doctrine and practice.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Thibodeau v. American Baptist Churches of Connecticut, supra, 671. ‘‘Under [the] excessive entanglement analy- sis . . . claims requiring courts to review and to inter- pret religious doctrine and practices are barred by the first amendment.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.; see Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese of the United States & Canada v. Milivojevich, 2023Under both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause, the first amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving disputed issues of religious doctrine and practice.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Thibodeau v. American Baptist Churches of Connecticut, supra, 671. ‘‘Under [the] excessive entanglement analy- sis . . . claims requiring courts to review and to inter- pret religious doctrine and practices are barred by the first amendment.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.; see Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese of the United States & Canada v. Milivojevich, | 1 | 1 |
Gellington v. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc.green1 sentence2011See Skrzypczak v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa, 611 F.3d 1238, 1245-46 (10th Cir. 2010); Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School, supra, 597 F.3d 777 ; Rweyemamu v. Cote, supra, 520 F.3d 208 ; Petruska v. Gannon University, supra, 462 F.3d 306 -307; Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951, 956 (9th Cir. 2004);Alicea-Hernandez v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, supra, 320 F.3d 703 ; Gellington v. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc., 203 F.3d 1299, 1303-1304 (11th Cir. 2000); Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Catholic | 1 | 1 |
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Elizabeth McDonough v. The Catholic University of Americagreen2 sentences2011Although the United States Supreme Court has not addressed the ministerial exception to date; but see footnote 19 of this opinion; every federal circuit has adopted the doctrine pursuant to either or both the free exercise and establishment clauses of the first amendment. 17 Indeed, in Rweyemamu v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, our Appellate Court reviewed the contemporary federal circuit authorities, and noted that “ ‘[t]he ministerial exception is judicial shorthand for two conclusions: the first is that the imposition of secular standards on a church’s employment of its minist 2011See Skrzypczak v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa, 611 F.3d 1238, 1245-46 (10th Cir. 2010); Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School, supra, 597 F.3d 777 ; Rweyemamu v. Cote, supra, 520 F.3d 208 ; Petruska v. Gannon University, supra, 462 F.3d 306 -307; Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951, 956 (9th Cir. 2004);Alicea-Hernandez v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, supra, 320 F.3d 703 ; Gellington v. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc., 203 F.3d 1299, 1303-1304 (11th Cir. 2000); Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Catholic | 1 | 1 |
Skrzypczak v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsagreen1 sentence2011See Skrzypczak v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa, 611 F.3d 1238, 1245-46 (10th Cir. 2010); Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School, supra, 597 F.3d 777 ; Rweyemamu v. Cote, supra, 520 F.3d 208 ; Petruska v. Gannon University, supra, 462 F.3d 306 -307; Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951, 956 (9th Cir. 2004);Alicea-Hernandez v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, supra, 320 F.3d 703 ; Gellington v. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc., 203 F.3d 1299, 1303-1304 (11th Cir. 2000); Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Catholic | 1 | 1 |
Monica L. McDowell Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church Will Acklesgreen1 sentence2011See Skrzypczak v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa, 611 F.3d 1238, 1245-46 (10th Cir. 2010); Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School, supra, 597 F.3d 777 ; Rweyemamu v. Cote, supra, 520 F.3d 208 ; Petruska v. Gannon University, supra, 462 F.3d 306 -307; Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church, 375 F.3d 951, 956 (9th Cir. 2004);Alicea-Hernandez v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, supra, 320 F.3d 703 ; Gellington v. Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, Inc., 203 F.3d 1299, 1303-1304 (11th Cir. 2000); Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Catholic | 1 | 1 |
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena of Martin Flanagan. United States of America v. Martin Flanagangreen1 sentence2005See In re Grand Jury Subpoena of Flanagan, 691 F.2d 116, 124 (2d Cir. 1982). 1 The orders at issue in no way implicate either the free exercise clause or the plaintiff’s right to international travel. | 1 | 1 |
Waldman v. Village Of Kiryas Joelgreen1 sentence2003See generally Waldman v. Village of Kiryas Joel, 207 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2000); Sands v. Living Word Fellowship, 34 P.3d 955 (Alaska 2001); Nally v. Grace Community Church of the Valley, 47 Cal. 3d 278 , 253 Cal. Rptr. 97 , 763 P.2d 948 (1988) (en banc), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1007 , 109 S. Ct. 1644 , 104 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sherbert v. Verner
green
2 sentences2024As this court previously has explained after examining the stat- ute’s legislative history, ‘‘§ 52-571b was enacted in response to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith, supra, 494 U.S. 885 , in which the court held that a generally applicable prohibition against socially harmful conduct does not violate the free exercise clause, regardless of whether the law burdens religious exercise. . . . [T]he purpose of § 52-571b was to restore the balancing standard, articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Sherbert v. Verner, [ 374 2024As this court previously has explained after examining the stat- ute’s legislative history, ‘‘§ 52-571b was enacted in response to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith, supra, 494 U.S. 885 , in which the court held that a generally applicable prohibition against socially harmful conduct does not violate the free exercise clause, regardless of whether the law burdens religious exercise. . . . [T]he purpose of § 52-571b was to restore the balancing standard, articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Sherbert v. Verner, [ 374 | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission
green
2 sentences2024Ed. 2d 965 (1963)], under which a law that burdens religious exercise must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.’’ (Citations omitted.) Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 285 Conn. 381 , 423–24, 941 A.2d 868 (2008). 2024Ed. 2d 965 (1963)], under which a law that burdens religious exercise must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.’’ (Citations omitted.) Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 285 Conn. 381 , 423–24, 941 A.2d 868 (2008). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Golding
green
2 sentences2023The defendant also argues that the plaintiff’s claim is unpreserved and not review- able under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015),15 because the lack of a finding as to whether the plaintiff’s position that Torah law should govern the dissolution of his marriage is a ‘‘sincerely held’’ religious belief renders the record inadequate for review. 2023The defendant also argues that the plaintiff’s claim is unpreserved and not review- able under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015),15 because the lack of a finding as to whether the plaintiff’s position that Torah law should govern the dissolution of his marriage is a ‘‘sincerely held’’ religious belief renders the record inadequate for review. | 2 | 1992–2023 |
St. Juste v. Comm'r of Corr.
green
1 sentence2024Juste v. Commissioner of Correction, 328 Conn. 198, 0 , 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 15 0 Conn. 1 ,0 17 Spillane v. Lamont In Employment Division, Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 , 110 S. Ct. 1595 , 108 L. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue
green
2 sentences2023Re- lying on Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, U.S. , 140 S. Ct. 2246 , 207 L. 2023Re- lying on Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, U.S. , 140 S. Ct. 2246 , 207 L. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Vitosky v. Mahajan
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
DeCorso v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc.
green
1 sentence2006DeCorso v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc., 78 Conn. App. 865, 880 , 829 A.2d 38 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 931 , 837 A.2d 805 (2003). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Decorso v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006DeCorso v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc., 78 Conn. App. 865, 880 , 829 A.2d 38 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 931 , 837 A.2d 805 (2003). 2006DeCorso v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc., 78 Conn. App. 865, 880 , 829 A.2d 38 , cert. denied, 266 Conn. 931 , 837 A.2d 805 (2003). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Nally v. Grace Community Church
green
2 sentences2003See generally Waldman v. Village of Kiryas Joel, 207 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2000); Sands v. Living Word Fellowship, 34 P.3d 955 (Alaska 2001); Nally v. Grace Community Church of the Valley, 47 Cal. 3d 278 , 253 Cal. Rptr. 97 , 763 P.2d 948 (1988) (en banc), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1007 , 109 S. Ct. 1644 , 104 L. 2003See generally Waldman v. Village of Kiryas Joel, 207 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2000); Sands v. Living Word Fellowship, 34 P.3d 955 (Alaska 2001); Nally v. Grace Community Church of the Valley, 47 Cal. 3d 278 , 253 Cal. Rptr. 97 , 763 P.2d 948 (1988) (en banc), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1007 , 109 S. Ct. 1644 , 104 L. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Sands v. Living Word Fellowship
green
1 sentence2003See generally Waldman v. Village of Kiryas Joel, 207 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2000); Sands v. Living Word Fellowship, 34 P.3d 955 (Alaska 2001); Nally v. Grace Community Church of the Valley, 47 Cal. 3d 278 , 253 Cal. Rptr. 97 , 763 P.2d 948 (1988) (en banc), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1007 , 109 S. Ct. 1644 , 104 L. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Nally v. Grace Community Church of the Valley
green
1 sentence2003See generally Waldman v. Village of Kiryas Joel, 207 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2000); Sands v. Living Word Fellowship, 34 P.3d 955 (Alaska 2001); Nally v. Grace Community Church of the Valley, 47 Cal. 3d 278 , 253 Cal. Rptr. 97 , 763 P.2d 948 (1988) (en banc), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1007 , 109 S. Ct. 1644 , 104 L. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Billhimer v. Maryland Administrative Board of Election Laws
green
1 sentence2003See generally Waldman v. Village of Kiryas Joel, 207 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2000); Sands v. Living Word Fellowship, 34 P.3d 955 (Alaska 2001); Nally v. Grace Community Church of the Valley, 47 Cal. 3d 278 , 253 Cal. Rptr. 97 , 763 P.2d 948 (1988) (en banc), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1007 , 109 S. Ct. 1644 , 104 L. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
San Fernando Valley Neighborhood Legal Services, Inc. v. Kemp
green
1 sentence2003See generally Waldman v. Village of Kiryas Joel, 207 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2000); Sands v. Living Word Fellowship, 34 P.3d 955 (Alaska 2001); Nally v. Grace Community Church of the Valley, 47 Cal. 3d 278 , 253 Cal. Rptr. 97 , 763 P.2d 948 (1988) (en banc), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1007 , 109 S. Ct. 1644 , 104 L. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah
green
2 sentences1999E.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 531-32 , 113 S. Ct. 2217 , 124 L. 1999E.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 531-32 , 113 S. Ct. 2217 , 124 L. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Strock v. Pressnell
green
1 sentence1993"If no legitimate religious belief or practice is at issue then the free exercise defense becomes frivolous." Strock v. Presnell, 380 Ohio St.3d 207 , 210 , 527 N.E.2d 1235 , 1238 (1988). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
cluster 442779
green
1 sentence1992Patrick v. LeFevre, supra, 157 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Prince v. Massachusetts
green
2 sentences1983The full passage from which the quoted excerpts are taken reads as follows: “To be sure, the power of the parent, oven when linked to a free exercise claim, may be subject to limitation under Prince [v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 , 64 S. Ct. 438 , 88 L. 1983The full passage from which the quoted excerpts are taken reads as follows: “To be sure, the power of the parent, oven when linked to a free exercise claim, may be subject to limitation under Prince [v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 , 64 S. Ct. 438 , 88 L. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.