Corp. of the Presiding Bishop v. City of West Linn

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that, where “the EFAA’s text sup- plies a clear answer to the questions at issue here, the Court does not have any charter to consider legislative history”
• explaining that RLUIPA is interpreted to embody jurisprudence under Free Exercise Clause
• addressing the same \tendency to inhibit test” that Living-Water urges before us and finding that \the [U.S. Supreme] Court did not adopt a 'tendency to inhibit’ test in Sherbert or use that test to decide Sherbert or any other case.”
• addressing the same “tendency to inhibit test” that Living W ater urges before us and finding that “the [U.S. Supreme] Court did not adopt a ‘tendency to inhibit’ test in Sherbert or use that test to decide Sherbert or any other case.”
• “Congress used the term ‘substantial burden’ because that was the term that the [United States Supreme] Court had used in Sherbert and other [f]ree [e]xercise cases decided before Smith”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).