Hines, Inc. v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “[p]arty anonymity does not obstruct the public’s view of the issues joined or the court’s performance in resolving them.”
• holding that minors challenging constitutionality of school prayer were permitted to proceed under fictitious names
• emphasizing that there were other factors, not just the fundamental privateness of plaintiffs’ views on religion, that warranted plaintiff anonymity in that case
• indicating that Richmond Newspapers supports the conclusion that the First Amendment is implicated by the plaintiffs’ failure to reveal their identity in the complaint
• explaining that by challenging government activity, the plaintiffs revealed their personal beliefs and practices and holding that religion is a “quintessentially private matter.”
• finding that 10 “[p]arty anonymity does not obstruct the public’s view of the issues joined or the court’s 11 performance in resolving them”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).