Opinion of the Justices

6 Citing cases

  1. Eugene Sand Gravel v. City of Eugene

    276 Or. 1007 (Or. 1977)   Cited 17 times
    In Eugene Sand Gravel, Inc. v. City of Eugene, 276 Or. 1007, 558 P.2d 338 (1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 876, 98 S.Ct. 226, 54 L.Ed.2d 155 (1977), the Oregon Supreme Court held that a large concrete cross erected in a public park had a secular purpose.

    (6) Baer v. Kolmorgen, 14 Misc.2d 1015, 181 NYS2d 230 (S Ct Westchester County 1958) (nativity scene on public school property); (7) Opinions of the Justices, 108 N.H. 97, 228 A.2d 161 (1967) (plaques with the words "In God We Trust" in public schoolrooms); (8) State ex rel Singlemann v. Morrison, 57 So.2d 238 (La Ct App) cert denied, 57 So.2d 238 (1952) (statue of nun in public park).

  2. Opinion of the Justices

    307 A.2d 558 (N.H. 1973)   Cited 3 times

    We find that amended House bill 639 insofar as it encourages and authorizes the recital of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools does not avoid the constitutional difficulties present in a proposed 1967 House bill which mandated morning exercises to include in the discretion of the classroom teacher the use of the Lord's Prayer, and other religious readings. Id.; Opinion of the Justices, 108 N.H. 97, 228 A.2d 161 (1967). In a recent elaboration of the test to be applied to determine whether a law offends the first amendment prohibition on enactments "respecting an establishment of religion", the Supreme Court of the United States speaking through Chief Justice Burger stated:

  3. Stone v. Graham

    449 U.S. 39 (1980)   Cited 304 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding unconstitutional posting of Ten Commandments despite notation explaining secular application thereof

    See id., at 34 ("It does not seem reasonable to require removal of a passive monument, involving no compulsion, because its accepted precepts, as a foundation for law, reflect the religious nature of an ancient era"). See also Opinion of the Justices, 108 N. H. 97, 228 A.2d 161 (1967) (upholding placement of plaques with the motto "In God We Trust" in public schools). The Court's emphasis on the religious nature of the first part of the Ten Commandments is beside the point.

  4. Gaines v. Anderson

    421 F. Supp. 337 (D. Mass. 1976)   Cited 10 times
    Upholding statute

    We find that the statute met the neutrality requirements of the Establishment Clause. See also Opinion of the Justices, 113 N.H. 297, 307 A.2d 558 (1973); Opinion of the Justices, 108 N.H. 97, 228 A.2d 161 (1967); Reed v. Van Hoven, 237 F. Supp. 48, 55-56 (W.D.Mich. 1965); Opinion of the Massachusetts Attorney General, Apr. 4, 1966, p. 299; Opinion of the Massachusetts Attorney General, Aug. 20, 1963, p. 84; Choper, Religion in Public Schools: A Proposed Constitutional Standard, 47 Minn.L.Rev. 329, 370-71 (1963); P. Freund, Religion and The Public Schools, The Legal Issue (1965).

  5. State v. Hoskin

    112 N.H. 332 (N.H. 1972)   Cited 5 times
    In Hoskin, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that NHRSA 262:27-c is not repugnant to either the due process clause or the First Amendment of the federal Constitution.

    One who spends the coin or currency of the United States bearing the motto "In God We Trust", or the Latin phrase "e pluribus unum", is not understood by others to proclaim his belief in either sentiment. See Opinion of the Justices, 108 N.H. 97, 102, 228 A.2d 161, 164 (1967); Lincoln v. Page, 109 N.H. 30, 241 A.2d 799 (1968). Similarly, we think that viewers do not regard the uniform words or devices upon registration plates as the craftsmanship of the registrants.

  6. Lincoln v. Page

    109 N.H. 30 (N.H. 1968)   Cited 15 times
    Upholding city practice of inviting clergy to open special meetings with invocation

    Reference to the Deity in coins and currency, in constitutions, on public buildings and plaques has not been considered an establishment of religion. Opinion of the Justices, 108 N.H. 97. The plaintiff is correct in contending that it is no defense to say that a practice, custom or local tradition is only a minor encroachment on the First Amendment.