Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1874–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina 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 |
|---|---|---|
Walz v. Tax Comm'n of City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2011In Lemon the United States Supreme Court established the seminal three-pronged inquiry: “First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’ ” 403 U.S. at 612-13 , 91 S. Ct. at 2111 (internal citations omitted) (quoting Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 674 , 90 S. Ct. 1409, 1414 (1970)). 2011In Lemon the United States Supreme Court established the seminal three-pronged inquiry: “First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster ‘an excessive government entanglement with religion.’ ” 403 U.S. at 612-13 , 91 S. Ct. at 2111 (internal citations omitted) (quoting Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 674 , 90 S. Ct. 1409, 1414 (1970)). | 2 | 2 |
Hernandez v. Commissionergreen2 sentences2011See Hernandez v. Comm’n, 490 U.S. 680, 695 , 109 S. Ct. 2136, 2146 (1989) (“If no . . . facial [denominational] preference exists, we proceed to apply the customary three-pronged Establishment Clause inquiry derived from Lemon v. Kurtzman.’’ (citations omitted)). 2011See Hernandez v. Comm’n, 490 U.S. 680, 695 , 109 S. Ct. 2136, 2146 (1989) (“If no . . . facial [denominational] preference exists, we proceed to apply the customary three-pronged Establishment Clause inquiry derived from Lemon v. Kurtzman.’’ (citations omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewinggreen2 sentences2011In cases of government aid to organizations that are not churches, the Court has considered “the character of the institutions benefited (e.g., whether the religious institutions [are] ‘predominantly religious’) and the nature of the aid that the State provided (e.g., whether it was neutral and nonideological).” 1 Id. at 232, 117 S. Ct. at 2015 (citations omitted); see also Hunt, 413 U.S. at 743-44 , 93 S. Ct. at 2874-75 ; Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 17-18 , 67 S. Ct. 504, 512-13 (1947). 2011In cases of government aid to organizations that are not churches, the Court has considered “the character of the institutions benefited (e.g., whether the religious institutions [are] ‘predominantly religious’) and the nature of the aid that the State provided (e.g., whether it was neutral and nonideological).” 1 Id. at 232, 117 S. Ct. at 2015 (citations omitted); see also Hunt, 413 U.S. at 743-44 , 93 S. Ct. at 2874-75 ; Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 17-18 , 67 S. Ct. 504, 512-13 (1947). | 1 | 1 |
Board of Ed. of Kiryas Joel Village School Dist. v. Grumetgreen2 sentences2011See Bd. of Educ. v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 702-06 , 114 S. Ct. 2481, 2491-92 (1994) (addressing an alleged Establishment Clause violation by drawing from cases involving delegation of authority, monetary aid, and other governmental benefits). 2011See Bd. of Educ. v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687, 702-06 , 114 S. Ct. 2481, 2491-92 (1994) (addressing an alleged Establishment Clause violation by drawing from cases involving delegation of authority, monetary aid, and other governmental benefits). | 1 | 1 |
Agostini v. Feltongreen2 sentences2011In cases of government aid to organizations that are not churches, the Court has considered “the character of the institutions benefited (e.g., whether the religious institutions [are] ‘predominantly religious’) and the nature of the aid that the State provided (e.g., whether it was neutral and nonideological).” 1 Id. at 232, 117 S. Ct. at 2015 (citations omitted); see also Hunt, 413 U.S. at 743-44 , 93 S. Ct. at 2874-75 ; Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 17-18 , 67 S. Ct. 504, 512-13 (1947). 2011In cases of government aid to organizations that are not churches, the Court has considered “the character of the institutions benefited (e.g., whether the religious institutions [are] ‘predominantly religious’) and the nature of the aid that the State provided (e.g., whether it was neutral and nonideological).” 1 Id. at 232, 117 S. Ct. at 2015 (citations omitted); see also Hunt, 413 U.S. at 743-44 , 93 S. Ct. at 2874-75 ; Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 17-18 , 67 S. Ct. 504, 512-13 (1947). | 1 | 1 |
Hunt v. McNairgreen2 sentences2011In cases of government aid to organizations that are not churches, the Court has considered “the character of the institutions benefited (e.g., whether the religious institutions [are] ‘predominantly religious’) and the nature of the aid that the State provided (e.g., whether it was neutral and nonideological).” 1 Id. at 232, 117 S. Ct. at 2015 (citations omitted); see also Hunt, 413 U.S. at 743-44 , 93 S. Ct. at 2874-75 ; Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 17-18 , 67 S. Ct. 504, 512-13 (1947). 2011In cases of government aid to organizations that are not churches, the Court has considered “the character of the institutions benefited (e.g., whether the religious institutions [are] ‘predominantly religious’) and the nature of the aid that the State provided (e.g., whether it was neutral and nonideological).” 1 Id. at 232, 117 S. Ct. at 2015 (citations omitted); see also Hunt, 413 U.S. at 743-44 , 93 S. Ct. at 2874-75 ; Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 17-18 , 67 S. Ct. 504, 512-13 (1947). | 1 | 1 |
Lemon v. Kurtzmanred2 sentences2011When, as here, the facts evince no preference for one religion over another, we apply the test enumerated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 , 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971), to resolve an *295 Establishment Clause challenge. 2011When, as here, the facts evince no preference for one religion over another, we apply the test enumerated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 , 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971), to resolve an *295 Establishment Clause challenge. | 1 | 1 |
Epperson v. Arkansasgreen2 sentences1997E.g., Heritage Village, 299 N.C. at 406-07 , 263 S.E.2d at 730-31 ; Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 , 21 L. 1997E.g., Heritage Village, 299 N.C. at 406-07 , 263 S.E.2d at 730-31 ; Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 , 21 L. | 1 | 1 |
Rodman v. Robinson.green2 sentences1980It has long been recognized that the organic law of our state "expressly denies religion any place in the supervision or control of secular affairs." Rodman v. Robinson, 134 N.C. 503, 509 , 47 S.E. 19, 21 (1904). 1980It has long been recognized that the organic law of our state "expressly denies religion any place in the supervision or control of secular affairs." Rodman v. Robinson, 134 N.C. 503, 509 , 47 S.E. 19, 21 (1904). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carlton v. . Bernhardt-Seagle Co.
neutral
2 sentences1947Southern v. Cotton Mills Co., 200 N. C., 165 , 156 S. E., 861 ; Carlton v. Bernhardt-Seagle Co., 210 N. C., 655 , 188 S. E., 77 ; Barbour v. State Hospital, 213 N. C., 515 , 196 S. E., 812 ; Dickey v. Cotton Mills (S. C.), 39 S. E. (2d), 501 . 1947Southern v. Cotton Mills Co., 200 N. C., 165 , 156 S. E., 861 ; Carlton v. Bernhardt-Seagle Co., 210 N. C., 655 , 188 S. E., 77 ; Barbour v. State Hospital, 213 N. C., 515 , 196 S. E., 812 ; Dickey v. Cotton Mills (S. C.), 39 S. E. (2d), 501 . | 2 | 1947–1947 |
Southern v. Morehead Cotton Mills Co.
green
2 sentences1947Southern v. Cotton Mills Co., 200 N. C., 165 , 156 S. E., 861 ; Carlton v. Bernhardt-Seagle Co., 210 N. C., 655 , 188 S. E., 77 ; Barbour v. State Hospital, 213 N. C., 515 , 196 S. E., 812 ; Dickey v. Cotton Mills (S. C.), 39 S. E. (2d), 501 . 1947Southern v. Cotton Mills Co., 200 N. C., 165 , 156 S. E., 861 ; Carlton v. Bernhardt-Seagle Co., 210 N. C., 655 , 188 S. E., 77 ; Barbour v. State Hospital, 213 N. C., 515 , 196 S. E., 812 ; Dickey v. Cotton Mills (S. C.), 39 S. E. (2d), 501 . | 2 | 1947–1947 |
Dickey v. Springs Cotton Mills
neutral
2 sentences1947Southern v. Cotton Mills Co. , 200 N.C. 165 , 156 S.E. 861 ; Carlton v. Bernhardt-Seagle Co. , 210 N.C. 655 , 188 S.E. 77 ; Barbour v. State Hospital , 213 N.C. 515 , 196 S.E. 812 ; Dickey v. Cotton Mills (S.C.), 39 S.E.2d 501 . 1947Southern v. Cotton Mills Co., 200 N. C., 165 , 156 S. E., 861 ; Carlton v. Bernhardt-Seagle Co., 210 N. C., 655 , 188 S. E., 77 ; Barbour v. State Hospital, 213 N. C., 515 , 196 S. E., 812 ; Dickey v. Cotton Mills (S. C.), 39 S. E. (2d), 501 . | 2 | 1947–1947 |
Barbour v. . State Hospital
green
2 sentences1947Southern v. Cotton Mills Co., 200 N. C., 165 , 156 S. E., 861 ; Carlton v. Bernhardt-Seagle Co., 210 N. C., 655 , 188 S. E., 77 ; Barbour v. State Hospital, 213 N. C., 515 , 196 S. E., 812 ; Dickey v. Cotton Mills (S. C.), 39 S. E. (2d), 501 . 1947Southern v. Cotton Mills Co., 200 N. C., 165 , 156 S. E., 861 ; Carlton v. Bernhardt-Seagle Co., 210 N. C., 655 , 188 S. E., 77 ; Barbour v. State Hospital, 213 N. C., 515 , 196 S. E., 812 ; Dickey v. Cotton Mills (S. C.), 39 S. E. (2d), 501 . | 2 | 1947–1947 |
Heritage Village Church & Missionary Fellowship, Inc. v. State
green
2 sentences1997E.g., Heritage Village, 299 N.C. at 406-07 , 263 S.E.2d at 730-31 ; Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 , 21 L. 1997E.g., Heritage Village, 299 N.C. at 406-07 , 263 S.E.2d at 730-31 ; Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 , 21 L. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Meek v. Pittenger
red
2 sentences1980It will be a rare case in which an instance of religious discrimination on the part of the state, prohibited by Section 19, will not also occasion a species of religious favoritism which tends to "control or interfere with the rights of conscience" protected by Section 13. [2] "It is well to emphasize, however, that the tests must not be viewed as setting the precise limits to the necessary constitutional inquiry, but serve only as guidelines with which to identify instances in which the objectives of the Establishment Clause have been impaired." Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349, 358-59 , 95 S. 1980It will be a rare case in which an instance of religious discrimination on the part of the state, prohibited by Section 19, will not also occasion a species of religious favoritism which tends to "control or interfere with the rights of conscience" protected by Section 13. [2] "It is well to emphasize, however, that the tests must not be viewed as setting the precise limits to the necessary constitutional inquiry, but serve only as guidelines with which to identify instances in which the objectives of the Establishment Clause have been impaired." Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349, 358-59 , 95 S. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
McFarlan v. Triton Insurance
neutral
1 sentence1874McFarland v. the Trenton Insurance Co., 4 Denio, 392 ; Potter v. Panic of Ithica, 5 Hill, 490 , and 7 Hill, 330 ; Western Boatmen's Benevolent Association v. Pribben, 48 Missouri, 37. | 1 | 1874–1874 |
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.