6 Florida opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2004 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rice v. Stategreen1 sentence2004In Silver Rose Entertainment, Inc. v. Clay County, 646 So.2d 246, 250-1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), rev. denied, 658 So.2d 992 (Fla.1995), we explained that article I, section 3 utilizes the test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. at 612-13 , 91 S.Ct. at 2111 , so that a statute which "passes muster under article I, section 3 of the Florida Constitution necessarily meets the federal Establishment Clause tests." However, we noted that, in addition to the three-stage Lemon test, [12] article I, section 3 "adds a fourth: The statute must not authorize the use of public moneys, directly or indire | 1 | 1 |
Zelman v. Simmons-Harrisgreen2 sentences2004In Silver Rose Entertainment, Inc. v. Clay County, 646 So.2d 246, 250-1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), rev. denied, 658 So.2d 992 (Fla.1995), we explained that article I, section 3 utilizes the test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. at 612-13 , 91 S.Ct. at 2111 , so that a statute which "passes muster under article I, section 3 of the Florida Constitution necessarily meets the federal Establishment Clause tests." However, we noted that, in addition to the three-stage Lemon test, [12] article I, section 3 "adds a fourth: The statute must not authorize the use of public moneys, directly or indire 2004In Silver Rose Entertainment, Inc. v. Clay County, 646 So.2d 246, 250-1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), rev. denied, 658 So.2d 992 (Fla.1995), we explained that article I, section 3 utilizes the test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. at 612-13 , 91 S.Ct. at 2111 , so that a statute which "passes muster under article I, section 3 of the Florida Constitution necessarily meets the federal Establishment Clause tests." However, we noted that, in addition to the three-stage Lemon test, [12] article I, section 3 "adds a fourth: The statute must not authorize the use of public moneys, directly or indire | 1 | 1 |
Silver Rose Entertain. v. Clay Countygreen2 sentences2004In Silver Rose Entertainment, Inc. v. Clay County, 646 So.2d 246, 250-1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), rev. denied, 658 So.2d 992 (Fla.1995), we explained that article I, section 3 utilizes the test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. at 612-13 , 91 S.Ct. at 2111 , so that a statute which "passes muster under article I, section 3 of the Florida Constitution necessarily meets the federal Establishment Clause tests." However, we noted that, in addition to the three-stage Lemon test, [12] article I, section 3 "adds a fourth: The statute must not authorize the use of public moneys, directly or indire 2004In Silver Rose Entertainment, Inc. v. Clay County, 646 So.2d 246, 250-1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), rev. denied, 658 So.2d 992 (Fla.1995), we explained that article I, section 3 utilizes the test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. at 612-13 , 91 S.Ct. at 2111 , so that a statute which "passes muster under article I, section 3 of the Florida Constitution necessarily meets the federal Establishment Clause tests." However, we noted that, in addition to the three-stage Lemon test, [12] article I, section 3 "adds a fourth: The statute must not authorize the use of public moneys, directly or indire | 1 | 1 |
Wallace v. Jaffreegreen2 sentences2004Specifically, it clarifies the basic inquiry when trying to determine whether a program that distributes aid to beneficiaries, rather than directly to service providers, has the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra, at 613-614 , 91 S.Ct. 2105 , or, as I have put it, of "endors [ing] or disapprov[ing] ... religion," Lynch v. Donnelly, supra, at 691-692 , 104 S.Ct. 1355 , 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (concurring opinion); see also Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 69-70 , 105 S.Ct. 2479 , 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985)(O'CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment). 2004Specifically, it clarifies the basic inquiry when trying to determine whether a program that distributes aid to beneficiaries, rather than directly to service providers, has the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra, at 613-614 , 91 S.Ct. 2105 , or, as I have put it, of "endors [ing] or disapprov[ing] ... religion," Lynch v. Donnelly, supra, at 691-692 , 104 S.Ct. 1355 , 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (concurring opinion); see also Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 69-70 , 105 S.Ct. 2479 , 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985)(O'CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment). | 1 | 1 |
Lee v. Weismangreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 , 112 S.Ct. 2649 , 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992) (advocating and applying a coercion-accommodation test); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 691 , 104 S.Ct. 1355 , 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring) (advocating adoption of an endorsement test). 2002See, e.g., Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 , 112 S.Ct. 2649 , 120 L.Ed.2d 467 (1992) (advocating and applying a coercion-accommodation test); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 691 , 104 S.Ct. 1355 , 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring) (advocating adoption of an endorsement test). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. O'CONNELLgreen2 sentences2002See Smith v. O'Connell, 986 F.Supp. 73, 76 (D.R.I.1997). 2002See Smith v. O'Connell, 986 F.Supp. 73, 76 (D.R.I.1997). | 1 | 1 |
Stone v. Wallgreen2 sentences2002DuPont De Nemours & Co., 761 So.2d 306 , 309 n. 3 (Fla.2000); Stone v. Wall, 734 So.2d 1038, 1039 (Fla.1999). [5] We note that several U.S. Supreme Court Justices have expressed dissatisfaction with the Lemon test, advocating an alternative analytical framework for evaluating First Amendment claims. 2002DuPont De Nemours & Co., 761 So.2d 306 , 309 n. 3 (Fla.2000); Stone v. Wall, 734 So.2d 1038, 1039 (Fla.1999). [5] We note that several U.S. Supreme Court Justices have expressed dissatisfaction with the Lemon test, advocating an alternative analytical framework for evaluating First Amendment claims. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bowen v. Kendrick
green
2 sentences2000"Under the Lemon standard ... a court may invalidate a statute only if [the statute] is motivated wholly by an impermissible purpose, if its primary effect is the advancement of religion, or if it requires excessive entanglement between church and state." Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 602 , 108 S.Ct. 2562 , 101 L.Ed.2d 520 (1988) (citations omitted). 2000"Under the Lemon standard ... a court may invalidate a statute only if [the statute] is motivated wholly by an impermissible purpose, if its primary effect is the advancement of religion, or if it requires excessive entanglement between church and state." Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. 589, 602 , 108 S.Ct. 2562 , 101 L.Ed.2d 520 (1988) (citations omitted). | 3 | 1996–2000 |
Lynch v. Donnelly
green
2 sentences2004Specifically, it clarifies the basic inquiry when trying to determine whether a program that distributes aid to beneficiaries, rather than directly to service providers, has the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra, at 613-614 , 91 S.Ct. 2105 , or, as I have put it, of "endors [ing] or disapprov[ing] ... religion," Lynch v. Donnelly, supra, at 691-692 , 104 S.Ct. 1355 , 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (concurring opinion); see also Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 69-70 , 105 S.Ct. 2479 , 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985)(O'CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment). 2004Specifically, it clarifies the basic inquiry when trying to determine whether a program that distributes aid to beneficiaries, rather than directly to service providers, has the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra, at 613-614 , 91 S.Ct. 2105 , or, as I have put it, of "endors [ing] or disapprov[ing] ... religion," Lynch v. Donnelly, supra, at 691-692 , 104 S.Ct. 1355 , 79 L.Ed.2d 604 (concurring opinion); see also Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 69-70 , 105 S.Ct. 2479 , 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985)(O'CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment). | 2 | 2002–2004 |
Douglas E. Brown Katherine E. Brown v. Woodland Joint Unified School District, Woodland Parents Group, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee
green
2 sentences1996Brown v. Woodland Joint Unified School Dist., 27 F.3d 1373 (9th Cir.1994) (holding, applying the Lemon test, that a teaching curriculum which asks children to discuss witches or pretend they are witches or sorcerers, does not require children to practice the “religion” of witchcraft in violation of the federal establishment clause or the California Constitution). 1996Brown v. Woodland Joint Unified School Dist., 27 F.3d 1373 (9th Cir.1994) (holding, applying the Lemon test, that a teaching curriculum which asks children to discuss witches or pretend they are witches or sorcerers, does not require children to practice the “religion” of witchcraft in violation of the federal establishment clause or the California Constitution). | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Lemon v. Kurtzman
red
2 sentences2004In Silver Rose Entertainment, Inc. v. Clay County, 646 So.2d 246, 250-1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), rev. denied, 658 So.2d 992 (Fla.1995), we explained that article I, section 3 utilizes the test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. at 612-13 , 91 S.Ct. at 2111 , so that a statute which "passes muster under article I, section 3 of the Florida Constitution necessarily meets the federal Establishment Clause tests." However, we noted that, in addition to the three-stage Lemon test, [12] article I, section 3 "adds a fourth: The statute must not authorize the use of public moneys, directly or indire 2004In Silver Rose Entertainment, Inc. v. Clay County, 646 So.2d 246, 250-1 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), rev. denied, 658 So.2d 992 (Fla.1995), we explained that article I, section 3 utilizes the test established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. at 612-13 , 91 S.Ct. at 2111 , so that a statute which "passes muster under article I, section 3 of the Florida Constitution necessarily meets the federal Establishment Clause tests." However, we noted that, in addition to the three-stage Lemon test, [12] article I, section 3 "adds a fourth: The statute must not authorize the use of public moneys, directly or indire | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Mazzoni Farms, Inc. v. EI DuPont De Nemours and Co.
green
2 sentences2002DuPont De Nemours & Co., 761 So.2d 306 , 309 n. 3 (Fla.2000); Stone v. Wall, 734 So.2d 1038, 1039 (Fla.1999). [5] We note that several U.S. Supreme Court Justices have expressed dissatisfaction with the Lemon test, advocating an alternative analytical framework for evaluating First Amendment claims. 2002DuPont De Nemours & Co., 761 So.2d 306 , 309 n. 3 (Fla.2000); Stone v. Wall, 734 So.2d 1038, 1039 (Fla.1999). [5] We note that several U.S. Supreme Court Justices have expressed dissatisfaction with the Lemon test, advocating an alternative analytical framework for evaluating First Amendment claims. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union
red
2 sentences1994In addition to the Lemon analysis, the Court has "paid particularly close attention to whether the challenged governmental practice either has the purpose or effect of `endorsing' religion, a concern that has long had a place in our Establishment Clause jurisprudence." Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 , 109 S.Ct. 3086 , 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989). 1994In addition to the Lemon analysis, the Court has "paid particularly close attention to whether the challenged governmental practice either has the purpose or effect of `endorsing' religion, a concern that has long had a place in our Establishment Clause jurisprudence." Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 , 109 S.Ct. 3086 , 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.