DiCenso v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs lacked standing. This objection we find to be without merit. The standing of taxpayers to challenge state expenditures which infringe the Establishment Clause has long been settled. Doremus v. Board of Education, etc., 342 U.S. 429 , 72 S.Ct. 394 , 96 L.Ed. 475 (1952). The more recent two step analysis suggested in Association of Data Processing Service Organizations Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 , 90 S.Ct. 827 , 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970), produces the same result. Plaintiffs allege that their tax dollars are being misspent, thus establishing injury in fact. It is also clear that the Establishment Clause was intended to limit the use of public funds in support of religious institutions. Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 103-104 , 88 S.Ct. 1942 , 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968); see Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 11-13 , 67 S.Ct. 504 , 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947). Thus the interest asserted by plaintiffs is within the zone protected by the First Amendment. Accord, Lemon v. Kurtzman, 310 F.Supp. 35 (E.D. Pa.1969), prob. juris. noted, 397 U.S. 1034 , 90 S.Ct. 1354 , 25 L.Ed.2d 646 (1970)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Rockefeller · 322 F. Supp. 678 - COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC ED. & RELIG. LIB. v. Rockefeller

2. “"The Chief Justice's phrasing and application of the effect test, however, mark a significant refinement. Gone are the intimations of Schempp that the single predominant effect of a statute may be isolated by a process of deductive reasoning based on principle and precedent. Instead, the Court focuses on whether the statute fosters `excessive entanglement' between government and religious institutions." As the Chief Justice put it in Walz : "Obviously a direct money subsidy would be a relationship pregnant with involvement and, as with most governmental grant programs, could encompass sustained and detailed administrative relationships for enforcement of statutory or administrative standards * * *" 397 U.S. at 675 , 90 S.Ct. at 1414 , 25 L.Ed.2d 697 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Rockefeller · 322 F. Supp. 678 - COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC ED. & RELIG. LIB. v. Rockefeller

3. “"Such a narrow perspective, * * *, strikes us as unrealistic when examining direct financial aid to denominational schools. The expenses of a religious institution may be apportioned in a variety of ways among its `secular' and `religious' activities. Under intervenors' proposed test, sophisticated bookkeeping could pave the way for almost total subsidy of a religious institution by assigning the bulk of the institution's expenses to `secular' activities." Id., 316 F.Supp. at 119-120 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Rockefeller · 322 F. Supp. 678 - COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC ED. & RELIG. LIB. v. Rockefeller