8 Mississippi opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Mississippi 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 |
|---|---|---|
Packingham v. North Carolinagreen1 sentence2025Ct. App. 2020) (quoting Packingham, 582 U.S. at 104). “‘[W]hatever the challenges of applying the Constitution to ever-advancing technology, the basic principles’ of the First Amendment ‘do not vary.’” Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707, 710 , 144 S. Ct. 2383 (2024) (quoting Brown v. Ent. | 1 | 1 |
Bradley Ex Rel. Bradley v. City of Jacksongreen1 sentence2013See Bradley v. City of Jackson, 590 F.Supp.2d 817, 823 (S.D.Miss.2008) (recognizing that in evaluating liability pursuant to § 1983, Mississippi Code Annotated section 17-25-11, while authorizing wear of uniforms and guns, did not prohibit the use of vehicles). . | 1 | 1 |
Watts v. City of Jacksongreen1 sentence2013See also Watts v. City of Jackson, 664 F.Supp.2d 680, 685-89 (S.D.Miss.2009) (no adverse employment action may be used to retaliate for First Amendment claim). . | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. Hartzgreen1 sentence2003Colo. 1998), aff'd on other grounds, 185 F.3d 873 (10th Cir.1999) (unpublished decision) (priest allegedly engaged in a three year sexual relationship with a minor; held: both religion clauses of the First Amendment bar claims of negligent hiring, negligent supervision, and outrageous conduct against archdiocese because such claims require inquiry into church policy and doctrine) Doe v. Hartz, 970 F. Supp. 1375, 1431-32 (N.D.Iowa 1997), rev'd in part on other grounds, 134 F.3d 1339 (8th Cir.1998) (parishioner accused clergy of sexual misconduct; held: claims of negligent hiring and negligent r | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Mississippi. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rolling v. State
green
2 sentences2007Id. 2003Id. | 2 | 2003–2007 |
Moody v. NetChoice, LLC
green
1 sentence2025Ct. App. 2020) (quoting Packingham, 582 U.S. at 104). “‘[W]hatever the challenges of applying the Constitution to ever-advancing technology, the basic principles’ of the First Amendment ‘do not vary.’” Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707, 710 , 144 S. Ct. 2383 (2024) (quoting Brown v. Ent. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re Holtzman
green
2 sentences2005In the case of In re Holtzman, 78 N.Y.2d 184 , 573 N.Y.S.2d 39 , 577 N.E.2d 30 (1991), an attorney released to the media specific allegations of improper judicial conduct and the court rejected the First Amendment challenge. 2005In the case of In re Holtzman, 78 N.Y.2d 184 , 573 N.Y.S.2d 39 , 577 N.E.2d 30 (1991), an attorney released to the media specific allegations of improper judicial conduct and the court rejected the First Amendment challenge. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Kenneth Gregory Thompson, Jr. v. Linda Patteson
green
1 sentence2004Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Isely v. Capuchin Province
green
1 sentence2003Colo. 1998), aff'd on other grounds, 185 F.3d 873 (10th Cir.1999) (unpublished decision) (priest allegedly engaged in a three year sexual relationship with a minor; held: both religion clauses of the First Amendment bar claims of negligent hiring, negligent supervision, and outrageous conduct against archdiocese because such claims require inquiry into church policy and doctrine) Doe v. Hartz, 970 F. Supp. 1375, 1431-32 (N.D.Iowa 1997), rev'd in part on other grounds, 134 F.3d 1339 (8th Cir.1998) (parishioner accused clergy of sexual misconduct; held: claims of negligent hiring and negligent r | 1 | 2003–2003 |
cluster 751192
green
1 sentence2003Colo. 1998), aff'd on other grounds, 185 F.3d 873 (10th Cir.1999) (unpublished decision) (priest allegedly engaged in a three year sexual relationship with a minor; held: both religion clauses of the First Amendment bar claims of negligent hiring, negligent supervision, and outrageous conduct against archdiocese because such claims require inquiry into church policy and doctrine) Doe v. Hartz, 970 F. Supp. 1375, 1431-32 (N.D.Iowa 1997), rev'd in part on other grounds, 134 F.3d 1339 (8th Cir.1998) (parishioner accused clergy of sexual misconduct; held: claims of negligent hiring and negligent r | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Schmidt v. Bishop
green
1 sentence2003Mich. 1995) (student allegedly abused by two priests; held: First Amendment bars questions of negligent hiring and retention because adjudication would require interpretation of church doctrines but no bar to negligent supervision claim) Schmidt v. Bishop, 779 F. Supp. 321 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (parishioner accused pastor of inappropriate contact constituting sexual abuse in the second degree that began during counseling when she was a minor; held: First Amendment bars breach of fiduciary duty claim against pastor due to excessive entanglement of the courts in religion if required to “articulate a ge | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Roppolo v. Moore
green
1 sentence2003Mich. 1995) (student allegedly abused by two priests; held: First Amendment bars questions of negligent hiring and retention because adjudication would require interpretation of church doctrines but no bar to negligent supervision claim) Schmidt v. Bishop, 779 F. Supp. 321 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (parishioner accused pastor of inappropriate contact constituting sexual abuse in the second degree that began during counseling when she was a minor; held: First Amendment bars breach of fiduciary duty claim against pastor due to excessive entanglement of the courts in religion if required to “articulate a ge | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Epperson v. Arkansas
green
2 sentences1970In the recent case of Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 , 89 S.Ct. 266 , 21 L.Ed.2d 228 (1968), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Arkansas statutes forbidding the teaching of evolution in public schools and colleges and universities supported in whole or part by public funds were contrary to the freedom of religion mandate of the First Amendment and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 1970In the recent case of Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 , 89 S.Ct. 266 , 21 L.Ed.2d 228 (1968), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Arkansas statutes forbidding the teaching of evolution in public schools and colleges and universities supported in whole or part by public funds were contrary to the freedom of religion mandate of the First Amendment and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.