Muhammad v. Paruk’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000B · 42 U.S.C. § 2000C
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Edelman v. Jordan · Kentucky v. Graham · Will v. Michigan Department of State Police · Pierson v. Ray
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Smith , Congress passed [RFRA] "to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert . . . and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened." 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb (b)(1). The Supreme Court, however, found that RFRA exceeded the scope of Congress's power under the Fourteenth Amendment and declared it unconstitutional as applied to the states. City of Boerne v. Flores , 521 U.S. 507 , 536 (1997). . . . In finding RFRA unconstitutional as applied to the states, the Court reinforced that its decision in Smith supplied the correct standard for deciding free exercise claims against state actors. See Id. at 533-35 . . .; accord Hansen v. Ann Arbor Public Schools , 293 F.Supp.2d 780 , 809 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (applying the Smith standard to a free exercise claim brought against state actors); Jocham v. Tuscola County , 239 F.Supp.2d 714 , 724 (E.D. Mich. 2003) (recognizing Smith as the governing precedent in free exercise cases against state actors). In 2000, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act (RLUIPA), requiring that strict scrutiny be applied to free exercise claims involving land use regulation or institutionalized persons. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq. ; see Cutter v. Wilkinson , 423 F.3d 579 , 582 (6th Cir. 2005).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Sherbert v. Verner , the Supreme Court found that under the First Amendment, governmental actions that substantially burden a religious practice must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. 374 U.S. 398 , 402-03 (1963). . . . The Supreme Court modified the standard for free exercise claims in Employment Division v. Smith , explaining that the right to free exercise of religion does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability. 494 U.S. 872 , 878-79 (1990). . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because [plaintiff's] free exercise claim is against a state actor and is not subject to RLUIPA, the standard set forth in Smith would apply. Under this standard, if [the small claims court judge] has a valid, neutral and generally applicable policy of requiring witnesses to keep their faces visible while giving testimony, that policy would not violate *Page 85 Muhammad's right to free exercise of her religion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.