establishment clause in Nebraska

2003Furthermore, "government programs that neutrally provide benefits to a broad class of citizens defined without reference to religion are not readily subject to an Establishment Clause challenge." Zelman, 536 U.S. at 651 (citing Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dist., 509 U.S. 1 , 8 (1993).

2003Furthermore, "government programs that neutrally provide benefits to a broad class of citizens defined without reference to religion are not readily subject to an Establishment Clause challenge." Zelman, 536 U.S. at 651 (citing Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dist., 509 U.S. 1 , 8 (1993).

2003Furthermore, "government programs that neutrally provide benefits to a broad class of citizens defined without reference to religion are not readily subject to an Establishment Clause challenge." Zelman, 536 U.S. at 651 (citing Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dist., 509 U.S. 1 , 8 (1993).

2003Furthermore, "government programs that neutrally provide benefits to a broad class of citizens defined without reference to religion are not readily subject to an Establishment Clause challenge." Zelman, 536 U.S. at 651 (citing Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dist., 509 U.S. 1 , 8 (1993).

2000For the reasons discussed above, we also conclude that Bjorklund’s rights under this provision were not violated. *499 Because we conclude that Bjorklund does not have standing to raise an Establishment Clause claim, we decline to address Bjorklund’s argument that violations of the Establishment Clause are not subject to harmless error analysis. (ii) Right to be Present and Right to Counsel In his second assignment of error, Bjorklund argues that the ex parte communication violated his right to be present as guaranteed by the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, by article I

2000For the reasons discussed above, we also conclude that Bjorklund’s rights under this provision were not violated. *499 Because we conclude that Bjorklund does not have standing to raise an Establishment Clause claim, we decline to address Bjorklund’s argument that violations of the Establishment Clause are not subject to harmless error analysis. (ii) Right to be Present and Right to Counsel In his second assignment of error, Bjorklund argues that the ex parte communication violated his right to be present as guaranteed by the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, by article I

1987“The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” 456 U.S. at 244 .

1982“First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’ ” Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 , 91 S. Ct. 2105 , 29 L.

1982“First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243 (1968); finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’ ” Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13 , 91 S. Ct. 2105 , 29 L.

1906In Armstrong v. Ogden City, 12 Utah, 476 , it is said: “So far as proceeding with the improvement or assisting in acquiring jurisdiction are concerned, we have been unable to find any case where public property situated within the confines of a local improvement district has' been permitted to affect the result, either one way or the other, and we think that the establishment of such a rule would not only be wrong in principle and wrong in theory, but it would also be contrary to the spirit and intention of the statutes providing for special improvement assessments.” We hold that Bemis Park is

1898(Robinson v. Mathwich, 5 Neb. 252 .) We are satisfied from an examination of the entire record that Lewis’s title to the portion of the disputed strip involved in this appeal has not been divested, and the decree of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.

1897Co. v. Bell, 44 Neb., 44 ; Hare v. Murphy, 45 Neb., 809 .) Prior to the establishment of this rule all benefits from the express contract of carriage would be lost unless the consignor himself might sue.

1897Co. v. Bell, 44 Neb., 44 ; Hare v. Murphy, 45 Neb., 809 .) Prior to the establishment of this rule all benefits from the express contract of carriage would be lost unless the consignor himself might sue.

1892(McGown v. Wilkins, 1 Paige Ch. [N. Y.], 120; Morris v. Mowatt, 2 Id., 586 ; Veeder v. Fonda, 3 Id., 94; Seaman v. Hicks, 8 Id., 656; Kauffman v. Walker, 9 Md., 229 ; Tooley v. Kane, 1 S. & M.

1892(McGown v. Wilkins, 1 Paige Ch. [N. Y.], 120; Morris v. Mowatt, 2 Id., 586 ; Veeder v. Fonda, 3 Id., 94; Seaman v. Hicks, 8 Id., 656; Kauffman v. Walker, 9 Md., 229 ; Tooley v. Kane, 1 S. & M.

1886We are aware that this is to some extent in conflict with the reasoning of Judge Maxwell in Crook v. Vandervoort, supra, but we think not in conflict with the decision in that case.