Quaring v. Peterson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 7 district · 9 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Clearly, a burden upon Quaring’s free exercise of her religion exists in this case. The state refuses to issue Quaring a driver’s license unless she agrees to allow her photograph to appear on the license, a condition that would'violate a fundamental precept of her religion. Moreover, in refusing to issue Quaring a driver’s license, the state withholds from her an important benefit. Quaring needs to drive a car for numerous daily activities, which include managing a herd of dairy and beef cattle, helping her husband manage a thousand-acre farming and livestock operation, and working as bookkeeper in a community ten miles from home. By requiring Quaring to comply with the photograph requirement, the state places an unmistakable burden upon her exercise of her religious beliefs. The burden on Quaring is indistinguishable from the burden placed upon a Sabbatarian by the state in Sherbert v. Verner, [ 374 U.S. 398 , 83 S.Ct. 1790 , 10 L.Ed.2d 965 (1963)], supra. In that case, the Supreme Court held that in denying unemployment benefits to a member of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church who refused to work on Saturdays, the Sabbath of her faith, the state violated her right to the free exercise of religion. 374 U.S. at 402 , 83 S.Ct. at 1792 . Assessing the burden of the denial of benefits on the Sabbatarian’s exercise of her religion, the Court commented, The [denial] forces her to choose between following the precepts of her religion and forfeiting benefits, on the one hand, and a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 646 F. Supp. 158 - Dennis v. Charnes

2. “As the Eighth Circuit stated in Quaring: In weighing the competing interests, we examine not only the substantial [government] interests that the photograph requirement generally serves, but also whether an exemption to the requirement would impair the [government’s] ability to achieve its objective. Wisconsin v. Yoder, supra, 406 U.S. at 221 , 92 S.Ct. at 1536 ; see also United States v. Lee, supra, 455 U.S. at 259 , 102 S.Ct. at 1056 (court must inquire whether accommodating exercise of religion will unduly interfere with fulfillment of government interest); L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 14-10, at 855 (1978) (crucial issue in free exercise cases is state’s interest in denying exemption, not in maintaining underlying rule or program). To prevail, [the government] must demonstrate that [its] refusal to exempt [the defendant] from the photograph requirement serves a compelling [government] interest.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Slabaugh

3. “Intrafaith differences ... are not uncommon among followers of a particular creed, and the judicial process is singularly ill equipped to resolve such differences in relation to the Religion Clauses. One can, of course, imagine an asserted claim so bizarre, so clearly nonreligious in motivation, as not to be entitled to protection under the Free Exercise Clause_ [T]he guarantee of free exercise is not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the members of a religious sect. Particularly in this sensitive area, it is not within the judicial function and judicial competence to inquire whether the petitioner or his fellow ... more correctly perceived the commands of their common faith. Courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Warner v. Graham