8 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2001 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois 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 |
|---|---|---|
Board of Education v. Bakalisgreen2 sentences1999See, e.g. , Pre-School Owners Ass'n of Illinois, Inc. v. Department of Children & Family Services , 119 Ill. 2d 268, 278-79 (1988); Board of Education, School District No. 142 v. Bakalis , 54 Ill. 2d 448, 465-66 (1973). 1988(See Board of Education v. Bakalis (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 448, 465-66 (using Lemon test in determining validity of alleged religious preference challenged under article I, section 3, of Illinois Constitution).) Lemon provides a three-part test for determining whether a statute violates the establishment clause: “First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, [citation]; finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’ [Citation.]” Lemon v. Kurtzman | 3 | 3 |
Pre-School Owners Ass'n of Illinois, Inc. v. Department of Children & Family Servicesgreen2 sentences1999See, e.g. , Pre-School Owners Ass'n of Illinois, Inc. v. Department of Children & Family Services , 119 Ill. 2d 268, 278-79 (1988); Board of Education, School District No. 142 v. Bakalis , 54 Ill. 2d 448, 465-66 (1973). 1999See, e.g. , Pre-School Owners Ass'n of Illinois, Inc. v. Department of Children & Family Services , 119 Ill. 2d 268, 278-79 (1988); Board of Education, School District No. 142 v. Bakalis , 54 Ill. 2d 448, 465-66 (1973). | 2 | 2 |
Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. Mergensgreen2 sentences1992Ed. 2d 191, 217 , 110 S. Ct. 2356, 2373 (opinion of O’Connor, J., joined by Rehnquist, C.J., and White and Blackmun, JJ.).) Accordingly, defendant has failed to prove any entanglement, and therefore, we hold that he has not met the standard of the third prong of the Lemon test. 1992Ed. 2d 191, 217 , 110 S. Ct. 2356, 2373 (opinion of O’Connor, J., joined by Rehnquist, C.J., and White and Blackmun, JJ.).) Accordingly, defendant has failed to prove any entanglement, and therefore, we hold that he has not met the standard of the third prong of the Lemon test. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Agostini v. Felton
green
2 sentences2001Regardless of how this last prong is cast, the factors used to assess whether an entanglement is “excessive” are similar to those used to examine “effect.” Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 232 , 138 L. 2001Regardless of how this last prong is cast, the factors used to assess whether an entanglement is “excessive” are similar to those used to examine “effect.” Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 232 , 138 L. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Mueller v. Allen
green
2 sentences2001As to the second prong of the Lemon test, we note, as did the Supreme Court in Mueller, 463 U.S. at 396 , 77 L. 2001As to the second prong of the Lemon test, we note, as did the Supreme Court in Mueller, 463 U.S. at 396 , 77 L. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000Ed. 2d 297 , 303 n.3, 103 S. Ct. 505 , 509 n.3 (1982), that courts will construe the term in its broadest sense, so as to avoid “serious constitutional questions.” Defendants have not met the standards of the Lemon test and, consequently, have not shown that the statute violates the establishment clause. 2000We assume, as the Supreme Court did in Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116 , 120 n. 3, 103 S.Ct. 505 , 509 n. 3, 74 L.Ed.2d 297 , 303 n. 3 (1982), that courts will construe the term in its broadest sense, so as to avoid "serious constitutional questions." Defendants have not met the standards of the Lemon test and, consequently, have not shown that the statute violates the establishment clause. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Lee v. Weisman
green
2 sentences1992Ed. 2d 467 , 112 S. Ct. 2649 , the United States Supreme Court has been asked to reconsider Lemon and to replace the relatively strict, separationist Lemon test with a more lenient one that turns on coercion of belief. (505 U.S._, 120 L. 1992Ed. 2d 467 , 112 S. Ct. 2649 , the United States Supreme Court has been asked to reconsider Lemon and to replace the relatively strict, separationist Lemon test with a more lenient one that turns on coercion of belief. (505 U.S._, 120 L. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Lemon v. Kurtzman
red
2 sentences1988(See Board of Education v. Bakalis (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 448, 465-66 (using Lemon test in determining validity of alleged religious preference challenged under article I, section 3, of Illinois Constitution).) Lemon provides a three-part test for determining whether a statute violates the establishment clause: “First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, [citation]; finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’ [Citation.]” Lemon v. Kurtzman 1988(See Board of Education v. Bakalis (1973), 54 Ill. 2d 448, 465-66 (using Lemon test in determining validity of alleged religious preference challenged under article I, section 3, of Illinois Constitution).) Lemon provides a three-part test for determining whether a statute violates the establishment clause: “First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion, [citation]; finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’ [Citation.]” Lemon v. Kurtzman | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos
green
2 sentences1988Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that “[u]nder the Lemon analysis, it is a permissible legislative purpose to alleviate significant governmental interference with the ability of religious organizations to define and carry out their religious missions.” (Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos (1987), 483 U.S._,_, 97 L. 1988Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that “[u]nder the Lemon analysis, it is a permissible legislative purpose to alleviate significant governmental interference with the ability of religious organizations to define and carry out their religious missions.” (Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos (1987), 483 U.S._,_, 97 L. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.