Search for: "Van Orden v. Perry"
Results 61 - 80
of 107
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jul 2015, 11:01 am
To be sure, the United States Supreme Court case of Van Orden v. [read post]
15 Apr 2015, 8:35 am
NOTE: The Arkansas statute referred to its version of the Ten Commandments as having been “displayed on the monument declared Constitutional in Van Orden v. [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 10:51 pm
Maybe Justice Breyer supported the Ten Commandments display in Van Orden v. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 5:25 am
Moreover, the Third Circuit noted that it could not find any precedent for finding an Establishment Clause challenge time-barred in a passive monument case, and indeed the cases were the opposite, citing, most persuasively, Van Orden v. [read post]
27 May 2014, 4:00 am
Supreme Court in Van Orden v. [read post]
18 May 2014, 7:56 am
In his dissent in the companion case of Van Orden v. [read post]
8 May 2014, 6:03 pm
” In so doing, she echoed a recurring theme in Justice Breyer’s writings about the Religion Clauses’ “basic purposes”: “They seek,” he said in his Van Orden v. [read post]
8 May 2014, 11:43 am
” In so doing, she echoed a recurring theme in Justice Breyer’s writings about the Religion Clauses’ “basic purposes”: “They seek,” he said in his Van Orden v. [read post]
6 May 2014, 7:20 am
” Van Orden v. [read post]
20 Feb 2014, 9:06 am
But Justice Scalia takes a very narrow view of the Establishment Clause in other contexts – for example, in his concurring opinion in Van Orden v. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 9:01 pm
Two cases decided on the same day in 2005—Van Orden v. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 7:15 pm
Doe Paul HorwitzChapter 17The Story of the Ten Commandments Cases: Van Orden v. [read post]
26 Aug 2011, 1:55 am
More recently, in Van Orden v Perry [2005], a narrow conservative majority of the Supreme Court held that the display of the ten commandments on the grounds of the Texas state capitol did not violate the establishment clause, primarily on the basis of the historical, secular significance of the Ten Commandments in the United States. [read post]
18 May 2011, 7:48 am
"Interestingly, if this case goes to court, the key Supreme Court precedent will be Van Orden v. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 6:41 pm
Kurtzman (1971) 403 U.S. 602; and 2. a fact-intensive “Van Orden assessment” of the purpose of the memorial, “the perception of that purpose by viewers, [whether] the monument’s physical setting suggests [something religious], and the monument’s history”, Van Orden v. [read post]
8 Jan 2011, 5:06 pm
Paul Clement argued back-to-back in Van Orden v. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 4:05 pm
The prior McCreary case was decided by a 5-4 vote of the Justices on June 27, 2005 — the same day that the Court, in another case (Van Orden v. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 11:03 am
[Explain] And in Van Orden v. [read post]
4 May 2010, 12:27 pm
Perry and McCreary County v. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 9:14 am
Justice Breyer doesn’t even clarify his understanding of the proper test, which proved pivotal in the Van Orden v. [read post]
