13 New Hampshire opinions name it 1 courts 1967–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Hampshire 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 |
|---|---|---|
Phillips v. Campbellgreen2 sentences2023An appellate court in California, without reference to what standard of scrutiny should apply, stated that, were the issue properly before it, the court would reject the appellant’s First Amendment challenge to a domestic violence protection order ordering the appellant to “not post photographs, videos, or information about [the victim] to any internet site and to remove the same from any internet site over which he has access or control” because his “ability to continue to engage in activity that has been determined after a hearing to constitute abuse under the [Domestic Violence Prevention A 2023An appellate court in California, without reference to what standard of scrutiny should apply, stated that, were the issue properly before it, the court would reject the appellant’s First Amendment challenge to a domestic violence protection order ordering the appellant to “not post photographs, videos, or information about [the victim] to any internet site and to remove the same from any internet site over which he has access or control” because his “ability to continue to engage in activity that has been determined after a hearing to constitute abuse under the [Domestic Violence Prevention A | 1 | 1 |
State v. Zidelgreen1 sentence2019State v. Zidel, 156 N.H. 684, 686 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc.green2 sentences2015Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 765 (1994). 2015Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., 512 U.S. 753, 765 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gubitosigreen2 sentences2011State v. Gubitosi, 157 N.H. 720, 728 (2008). 2011State v. Gubitosi, 157 N.H. 720, 728 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Malicki v. Doegreen1 sentence2005In its opinion, the court quoted the reasoning of a lower Florida court, which had come to a slightly different conclusion, but whose reasoning I find persuasive: “[J]ust as the State may prevent a church from offering human sacrifices, it may protect its children against injuries caused by pedophiles by authorizing civil damages against a church that knowingly (including should know) creates a situation in which such injuries are likely to occur.” Malicki, 814 So. 2d at 360 (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Alberts v. Devinegreen1 sentence2005Further, “[a] law, legislatively or judicially created, that would regulate or prevent religiously motivated conduct does not violate the First Amendment if the State’s interests in the law’s enforcement outweighs the burden that the law imposes on the free exercise of religion.” Alberts v. Devine, 479 N.E.2d 113, 123 (Mass. 1985). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ballgreen2 sentences1988See State v. Ball, 124 N.H. at 231-32 , 471 A.2d at 351 . 1988See State v. Ball, 124 N.H. at 231-32 , 471 A.2d at 351 . | 1 | 1 |
Lathrop v. Donohuegreen1 sentence1986It cannot be denied that this is a legitimate end of state policy.” Lathrop, 367 U.S. at 843 (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Hampshire. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty.
green
2 sentences2007On appeal, the defendants contend that: (1) the plaintiff’s First Amendment claim is barred by the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S. Ct. 1951 (2006); (2) if the First Amendment claim is not barred by Garcetti , the balancing test from Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), weighs against the *678 plaintiff; (3) Porter is entitled to qualified immunity; (4) the superior court erred in various evidentiary rulings prior to and during trial; (5) the superior court erred in its instructions to the jury relating to Part I, Article 8 of the New 2007On appeal, the defendants contend that: (1) the plaintiff’s First Amendment claim is barred by the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S. Ct. 1951 (2006); (2) if the First Amendment claim is not barred by Garcetti , the balancing test from Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), weighs against the *678 plaintiff; (3) Porter is entitled to qualified immunity; (4) the superior court erred in various evidentiary rulings prior to and during trial; (5) the superior court erred in its instructions to the jury relating to Part I, Article 8 of the New | 2 | 1976–2007 |
Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União Do Vegetal
green
1 sentence2020Not only does the United States Supreme Court apply the test under RFRA, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb; Gonzales, 546 U.S. at 423-24 , it also does so in its First Amendment analysis in the event that it determines that the challenged laws “are not ‘neutral’ and of ‘general applicability.’” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, 592 U.S. at __ (per curiam) (slip op. at 1-7) (emphasis added) (concluding that restrictions were not facially neutral, and ordering preliminary injunctive relief in case brought by religious institutions challenging restrictions placed on the size of religious gatherings due to | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Colten v. Kentucky
green
1 sentence2012The Court rejected the defendant’s as-applied First Amendment challenge on the grounds that the defendant “had no constitutional right to observe the issuance of a traffic ticket or to engage the issuing officer in conversation at that time.” Id. at 109 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Garcetti v. Ceballos
green
2 sentences2007On appeal, the defendants contend that: (1) the plaintiff’s First Amendment claim is barred by the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S. Ct. 1951 (2006); (2) if the First Amendment claim is not barred by Garcetti , the balancing test from Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), weighs against the *678 plaintiff; (3) Porter is entitled to qualified immunity; (4) the superior court erred in various evidentiary rulings prior to and during trial; (5) the superior court erred in its instructions to the jury relating to Part I, Article 8 of the New 2007On appeal, the defendants contend that: (1) the plaintiff’s First Amendment claim is barred by the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 126 S. Ct. 1951 (2006); (2) if the First Amendment claim is not barred by Garcetti , the balancing test from Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), weighs against the *678 plaintiff; (3) Porter is entitled to qualified immunity; (4) the superior court erred in various evidentiary rulings prior to and during trial; (5) the superior court erred in its instructions to the jury relating to Part I, Article 8 of the New | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Quinn v. City of Concord
green
2 sentences1976Since the facts found by the Governor and Council are supported by evidence and are not unreasonable or arbitrary, we are limited to a determination of whether on the facts found plaintiff could legally be dismissed. *457 Quinn v. Concord, 108 N.H. 242 , 233 A.2d 106 (1967). 1976Since the facts found by the Governor and Council are supported by evidence and are not unreasonable or arbitrary, we are limited to a determination of whether on the facts found plaintiff could legally be dismissed. *457 Quinn v. Concord, 108 N.H. 242 , 233 A.2d 106 (1967). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Waite v. School Committee of Newton
green
1 sentence1967Schempp, supra. Waite v. School Committee of Newton, 348 Mass. 767 . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education
green
1 sentence1967The furnishing of school books to all pupils including those in parochial schools had been upheld in Cochran v. Board of Education, 281 U. S. 370 (1930) but the First Amendment was not in issue in this case since it had not then been held applicable to the states, and the parties did not raise the First-Amendment issue. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Abington School Dist. v. Schempp
green
1 sentence1967Schempp, supra. Waite v. School Committee of Newton, 348 Mass. 767 . | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Engel v. Vitale
green
1 sentence1967However, it has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States that the First Amendment under the test previously quoted forbids any government to compose official prayers, no matter how nondenominational, for any group of American people to recite as part of a religious program carried on by government (Engel v. Vitale, supra ) and that it also forbids the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer or the reading from the Holy Bible as part of an opening religious exercise prescribed by any government in the public schools. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.