Search for: "Sherbert v. Sherbert"
Results 101 - 120
of 137
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Dec 2013, 10:02 am
”) At the same time, the unemployment compensation cases — Sherbert v. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 1:52 pm
Gillette v. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 8:39 am
In Cutter v. [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 11:14 pm
The unemployment compensation cases — Sherbert v. [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 3:44 pm
There aren’t many lower court decisions applying the federal and state RFRAs, and there is only one Supreme Court decision applying the federal RFRA, Gonzales v. [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 9:02 am
Should Amish children, for instance, be exempted from compulsory education after age 14, as the Court held in Wisconsin v. [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 4:43 am
And in Sherbert v. [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 1:54 pm
Filed: November 7, 2013 (unpublished)Opinion by: Judge Andre Davis Held: the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina was not clearly erroneous and did not abuse its discretion in ruling that (1) the parties reached a binding and enforceable oral settlement agreement; and (2) plaintiff did not proceed in bad faith, so neither a dismissal with prejudice nor an award of attorney's fees was appropriate.Facts: Plaintiff made a $12 million commercial loan to a… [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 9:01 pm
They had obtained limited success following Justice Brennan’s decision in Sherbert v. [read post]
20 May 2013, 4:48 am
Smith, in which the Court concluded that a claim that a neutral and generally applicable criminal law burdens religious conduct need not be evaluated under the “compelling interest” test set out by the Court in Sherbert v. [read post]
13 May 2012, 4:39 pm
” — this might qualify as either incitement of imminent criminal conduct, or as constitutionally unprotected solicitation of crime (see United States v. [read post]
8 May 2012, 8:02 pm
United States v. [read post]
29 Feb 2012, 3:40 pm
In Sherbert v. [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 1:10 pm
Here’s the Court’s statement on this, in the unemployment exemption context (though I think it would likely also apply to religious accommodations under Title VII), from Hobbie v. [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 11:23 am
In Sherbert v. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 7:13 am
Smith) rather than a balancing of factors (ie., Sherbert v. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 1:12 pm
If you wanted, you could read Employment Division v. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 10:11 am
(Eugene Volokh) DiGiacinto v. [read post]
11 Jan 2011, 12:30 am
If that argument succeeds, the relevant prohibition must pass a strict scrutiny test – it must be shown that the prohibition was narrowly tailored to advance some compelling government interest (the test in Sherbert v. [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 5:52 pm
(McConnell is on the pro–Sherbert/Yoder wing of the conservative movement when it comes to free exercise, rather than Justice Scalia’s pro–Employment-Division-v. [read post]
