D.C. Circuit· 12/30/2008
Kaemmerling v. Lappin
Citations
- 553 F.3d 669
- 384 U.S. App. D.C. 240
- 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 26507
- 2008 WL 5396823
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding “as true the factual allegations that [the claimant’s] beliefs are sincere and of a religious nature — but not the legal conclusion, cast as a factual allegation, that [their] religious exercise is substantially burdened”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Sentelle, Henderson, Kavanaugh
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
137 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Marshall King v. Robert McCartySeventh Circuit· 2015-03-27· cited 688×
- Cyril Korte v. HHSSeventh Circuit· 2013-11-08· cited 361×
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.Supreme Court· 2014-06-30· cited 360×
- Rickey I. Kanter v. William P. BarrSeventh Circuit· 2019-03-15· cited 216×
- United States ex rel. Heath v. AT & T, Inc.D.C. Circuit· 2015-06-23· cited 129×
- Archdiocese of Wash. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.D.C. Circuit· 2018-07-31· cited 122×
- United States v. Earl DavisFourth Circuit· 2012-08-16· cited 120×
- United States v. MitchellThird Circuit· 2011-07-25· cited 106×
- Nader v. Democratic National CommitteeD.C. Circuit· 2009-06-09· cited 81×
- Priests for Life v. United States Department of Health & Human ServicesD.C. Circuit· 2015-05-20· cited 77×
- Fletcher v. Menard Correctional CenterSeventh Circuit· 2010-10-28· cited 68×
- United States Ex Rel. Westrick v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc.District of Columbia· 2012-09-30· cited 67×
- Priests for Life v. United States Department of Health & Human ServicesD.C. Circuit· 2014-11-14· cited 56×
- Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. R.G. &. G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc.Sixth Circuit· 2018-03-07· cited 56×
- Crummey v. Social Security AdministrationDistrict of Columbia· 2011-06-30· cited 50×
- University of Notre Dame v. Kathleen SebeliusSeventh Circuit· 2014-02-21· cited 44×
- Real Alternatives, Inc. v. Secretary Department of Health & Human ServicesThird Circuit· 2017-08-04· cited 44×
- The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta v. Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesEleventh Circuit· 2016-02-18· cited 40×
- Mead v. HolderDistrict of Columbia· 2011-02-22· cited 38×
- Michigan Catholic Conference & Catholic Family Services v. BurwellSixth Circuit· 2014-06-11· cited 38×
Cites
48 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court· 1979-05-14· cited 11,438×
- Jones v. BockSupreme Court· 2007-01-22· cited 10,443×
- Woodford v. NgoSupreme Court· 2006-06-22· cited 8,220×
- Hudson v. PalmerSupreme Court· 1984-07-03· cited 8,014×
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1966-06-20· cited 6,067×
- Porter v. NussleSupreme Court· 2002-02-26· cited 4,960×
- Singleton v. WulffSupreme Court· 1976-07-01· cited 3,831×
- Booth v. ChurnerSupreme Court· 2001-05-29· cited 3,581×
- Moran v. BurbineSupreme Court· 1986-03-10· cited 3,339×
- Wisconsin v. YoderSupreme Court· 1972-05-15· cited 3,250×
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court· 1955-05-09· cited 2,938×
- Richardson v. MarshSupreme Court· 1987-04-21· cited 2,670×
- Sherbert v. VernerSupreme Court· 1963-06-17· cited 2,650×
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. SmithSupreme Court· 1990-04-17· cited 2,569×
- Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. DoeSupreme Court· 1993-06-24· cited 2,199×
- McNeil v. WisconsinSupreme Court· 1991-06-13· cited 1,818×
- Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security DivisionSupreme Court· 1981-04-06· cited 1,701×
- Ewing v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 2003-03-05· cited 1,555×
- Schall v. MartinSupreme Court· 1984-06-04· cited 785×
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União Do VegetalSupreme Court· 2006-02-21· cited 713×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.