Boone v. Boozman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting Smith included compulsory immunization of children as example of state action that should not be subject to compelling interest test; citing Smith, 494 U.S. at 888-89, 110 S. Ct. at 1605-06; Cude v. State, 377 S.W.2d 816, 818-20 (Ark. 1964)
• “Because the immunization statute is a neutral law of general applicability, heightened scrutiny is not required even though compulsory immunization may burden plaintiffs right to free exercise.”
• state's requirement that public school students be immunized overrides right to refuse treatment
• court found that case did not present hybrid rights theory
• “The constitutionally-protected free exercise of religion does not excuse an individual from compulsory immunization; in this instance, the right to free exercise of religion . . . [is] subordinated to society’s interest in protecting against the spread of disease.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).