8 Wisconsin opinions name it 3 courts 1986–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Wisconsin 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lemon v. Kurtzmanred2 sentences2009She argues, for example, that giving religious employers an exemption from non-discrimination laws "dangerously encroaches upon the Establishment Clause's prohibition against furthering religion." Ostlund further asserts that the three-part Establishment Clause test announced by the Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 , 91 S.Ct. 2105 , 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971), should govern our determination of whether application of the WFEA here violates CCS's constitutional rights. [11] Though at times mentioning the Free Exercise Clause, Ostlund argues that the only relevant question here is whe 2009She argues, for example, that giving religious employers an exemption from non-discrimination laws "dangerously encroaches upon the Establishment Clause's prohibition against furthering religion." Ostlund further asserts that the three-part Establishment Clause test announced by the Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 , 91 S.Ct. 2105 , 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971), should govern our determination of whether application of the WFEA here violates CCS's constitutional rights. [11] Though at times mentioning the Free Exercise Clause, Ostlund argues that the only relevant question here is whe | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Edward Lemongreen2 sentences1991Lemon, 723 F.2d at 924 . 1991See Lemon, 723 F.2d at 936 . | 2 | 2 |
Jackson v. Bensongreen2 sentences2009Our analysis in Jackson v. Benson under the second prong of that testwhether the benefit in question has a principal or primary effect of neither advancing nor inhibiting religioncannot be squared with the majority opinion here. ¶ 117 In assessing the constitutionality of the amended MPCP under the second prong of the Lemon test, we first explained that benefits under the amended MPCP needed to be "determined by `neutral, secular criteria that neither favor nor disfavor religion,' and aid `is made available to both religious and secular beneficiaries on a nondiscriminatory basis.'" Jackson, 2009Our analysis in Jackson v. Benson under the second prong of that testwhether the benefit in question has a principal or primary effect of neither advancing nor inhibiting religioncannot be squared with the majority opinion here. ¶ 117 In assessing the constitutionality of the amended MPCP under the second prong of the Lemon test, we first explained that benefits under the amended MPCP needed to be "determined by `neutral, secular criteria that neither favor nor disfavor religion,' and aid `is made available to both religious and secular beneficiaries on a nondiscriminatory basis.'" Jackson, | 1 | 1 |
Lee v. Weismangreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) (advocating and applying a coercion test); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 691 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring) (advocating adoption of an endorsement test). 2005See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) (advocating and applying a coercion test); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 691 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring) (advocating adoption of an endorsement test). | 1 | 1 |
Lynch v. Donnellygreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) (advocating and applying a coercion test); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 691 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring) (advocating adoption of an endorsement test). 2005See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) (advocating and applying a coercion test); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 691 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring) (advocating adoption of an endorsement test). | 1 | 1 |
Arvelo v. American International Insurancegreen2 sentences1997Therefore, our analysis focuses on whether the negligent supervision claim would involve the application of neutral principles of law, rather than the Lemon test. [12] See Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 194 Wis. 2d 302 , 316 n.3, 326-27, 330 (1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 920 (1996). [13] Schmidt and Roppolo were cited with approval in Pritzlaff. 1997Therefore, our analysis focuses on whether the negligent supervision claim would involve the application of neutral principles of law, rather than the Lemon test. [12] See Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 194 Wis. 2d 302 , 316 n.3, 326-27, 330 (1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 920 (1996). [13] Schmidt and Roppolo were cited with approval in Pritzlaff. | 1 | 1 |
Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukeegreen2 sentences1997Therefore, our analysis focuses on whether the negligent supervision claim would involve the application of neutral principles of law, rather than the Lemon test. [12] See Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 194 Wis. 2d 302 , 316 n.3, 326-27, 330 (1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 920 (1996). [13] Schmidt and Roppolo were cited with approval in Pritzlaff. 1997Therefore, our analysis focuses on whether the negligent supervision claim would involve the application of neutral principles of law, rather than the Lemon test. [12] See Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 194 Wis. 2d 302 , 316 n.3, 326-27, 330 (1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 920 (1996). [13] Schmidt and Roppolo were cited with approval in Pritzlaff. | 1 | 1 |
Tilton v. Richardsongreen2 sentences1991See Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971); Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734 (1973); Roemer v. Board of Pub. 1991See Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971); Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734 (1973); Roemer v. Board of Pub. | 1 | 1 |
Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Aldine Independent School Districtgreen2 sentences1986Applying the three-part Lemon test, the Court addressed the claim made by the school that the prayer had the secular purpose of instilling in the students "`a sense of school spirit or pride . . . *Page 85 [which] has a beneficial effect on the student body and contributes to an increase in morale, and concomitantly lessens disciplinary problems.'" Aldine , 563 F. Supp. at 886 . 1986Applying the three-part Lemon test, the Court addressed the claim made by the school that the prayer had the secular purpose of instilling in the students "`a sense of school spirit or pride . . . *Page 85 [which] has a beneficial effect on the student body and contributes to an increase in morale, and concomitantly lessens disciplinary problems.'" Aldine , 563 F. Supp. at 886 . | 1 | 1 |
Wallace v. Jaffreegreen2 sentences1986See Wallace , 105 S.Ct. at 2490 . *Page 87 However, the majority opinion suggests in passing that a simple moment for "silent meditation" may be constitutional if the state does not endorse prayer as the preferred activity for that time. 1986See Wallace , 105 S.Ct. at 2490 . *Page 87 However, the majority opinion suggests in passing that a simple moment for "silent meditation" may be constitutional if the state does not endorse prayer as the preferred activity for that time. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Wisconsin. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Agostini v. Felton
green
2 sentences2009Our analysis in Jackson v. Benson under the second prong of that testwhether the benefit in question has a principal or primary effect of neither advancing nor inhibiting religioncannot be squared with the majority opinion here. ¶ 117 In assessing the constitutionality of the amended MPCP under the second prong of the Lemon test, we first explained that benefits under the amended MPCP needed to be "determined by `neutral, secular criteria that neither favor nor disfavor religion,' and aid `is made available to both religious and secular beneficiaries on a nondiscriminatory basis.'" Jackson, 2009Our analysis in Jackson v. Benson under the second prong of that testwhether the benefit in question has a principal or primary effect of neither advancing nor inhibiting religioncannot be squared with the majority opinion here. ¶ 117 In assessing the constitutionality of the amended MPCP under the second prong of the Lemon test, we first explained that benefits under the amended MPCP needed to be "determined by `neutral, secular criteria that neither favor nor disfavor religion,' and aid `is made available to both religious and secular beneficiaries on a nondiscriminatory basis.'" Jackson, | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State ex rel. Weiss v. District Board of School District No. Eight
green
2 sentences2009Bd., 76 Wis. 177 , 44 N.W. 967 (1890) (public funds may not be used to fund a school that requires students to read from the Bible). ¶ 124 Thus, just as with the above analysis under the second prong of the Lemon test, the majority's characterization of facts that religion is central to every part of CCS's curriculum, see, e.g., majority op., ¶¶ 5, 72, 73, 75-77, and, by extension, any other Catholic or otherwise religious school, likewise jeopardizes our holding in Jackson v. Benson that the amended MPCP does not violate the benefits clause in Article I, Section 18. ¶ 125 Finally, the majorit 2009Bd., 76 Wis. 177 , 44 N.W. 967 (1890) (public funds may not be used to fund a school that requires students to read from the Bible). ¶ 124 Thus, just as with the above analysis under the second prong of the Lemon test, the majority's characterization of facts that religion is central to every part of CCS's curriculum, see, e.g., majority op., ¶¶ 5, 72, 73, 75-77, and, by extension, any other Catholic or otherwise religious school, likewise jeopardizes our holding in Jackson v. Benson that the amended MPCP does not violate the benefits clause in Article I, Section 18. ¶ 125 Finally, the majorit | 1 | 2009–2009 |
In RE MARRIAGE OF COOK v. Cook
green
2 sentences2005Id. at 189 . [2] Several U.S. Supreme Court Justices have expressed dissatisfaction with the Lemon test, advocating alternative frameworks. 2005Id. at 189 . [2] Several U.S. Supreme Court Justices have expressed dissatisfaction with the Lemon test, advocating alternative frameworks. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hunt v. McNair
green
2 sentences1991See Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971); Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734 (1973); Roemer v. Board of Pub. 1991See Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971); Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734 (1973); Roemer v. Board of Pub. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.