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 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1957–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hogangreen1 sentence2016Understanding the Legislature is presumed to act in a constitutional manner, State v. Fortin, 198 N.J. 619, 631 (2009), the omission, in part, may have been designed to avoid a possible unconstitutional infringement upon an individual's right to freely attend religious services or activities. 13 A-5063-14T3 process." State v. Hogan, 144 N.J. 216, 228 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fortingreen1 sentence2016Understanding the Legislature is presumed to act in a constitutional manner, State v. Fortin, 198 N.J. 619, 631 (2009), the omission, in part, may have been designed to avoid a possible unconstitutional infringement upon an individual's right to freely attend religious services or activities. 13 A-5063-14T3 process." State v. Hogan, 144 N.J. 216, 228 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
Torcaso v. Watkinsgreen2 sentences1970The court has the right and duty under either the cited statute or under the doctrine of parens patriae to carry out the constitutional privileges and rights afforded to E, namely, "the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience." In Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 , 81 S.Ct. 1680, 1683-1684 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 982, 987 (1961), Torcaso was appointed to the office of notary public; he was refused a *331 commission to serve because he would not declare his belief in God. 1970The court has the right and duty under either the cited statute or under the doctrine of parens patriae to carry out the constitutional privileges and rights afforded to E, namely, "the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience." In Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 , 81 S.Ct. 1680, 1683-1684 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 982, 987 (1961), Torcaso was appointed to the office of notary public; he was refused a *331 commission to serve because he would not declare his belief in God. | 1 | 1 |
Childs v. Pegelowgreen1 sentence1964Article I, par. 3 of the New Jersey Constitution provides: “No person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; * * 5 In Childs v. Pegelow, 321 F. 2d 487, 489 (4 Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U. S. 932 , 84 S. Ct. 702 , 11 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cantwell v. Connecticut
green
2 sentences1959And our own State Constitution, Article I, paragraph 3, provides that `No person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; * * *.' The Supreme Court in the Cantwell case drew a distinction between freedom to believe and freedom to exercise one's belief, pointing out that the former is absolute, the latter not. 310 U.S., at pages 303-304, 60 S.Ct., at page 903 . 1957And our own State Constitution, Article I, paragraph 3, provides that "No person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; * * *." The Supreme Court in the Cantwell *479 case drew a distinction between freedom to believe and freedom to exercise one's belief, pointing out that the former is absolute, the latter not. 310 U.S., at pages 303-304, 60 S.Ct., at page 903 . | 2 | 1957–1959 |
Nos. 86-4102, 86-4140
green
1 sentence1993Neither party points out in the briefs this apparent factfinding error. [2] Judge Gee described this national dispute as a "clash ... between constitutional rights defined by the Supreme Court: an old one tracing its roots to the speech clause of the First Amendment and before, and a new one stemming from Roe v. Wade ." Ibid. [3] The State constitutional provision says: "No person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience." N.J. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Wisconsin v. Yoder
green
1 sentence1982In particular, the ordinance deprives no one "of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience." Id., par. 3. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Childs v. Pegelow
green
2 sentences1964Article I, par. 3 of the New Jersey Constitution provides: “No person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; * * 5 In Childs v. Pegelow, 321 F. 2d 487, 489 (4 Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U. S. 932 , 84 S. Ct. 702 , 11 L. 1964Article I, par. 3 of the New Jersey Constitution provides: “No person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; * * 5 In Childs v. Pegelow, 321 F. 2d 487, 489 (4 Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U. S. 932 , 84 S. Ct. 702 , 11 L. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.