Stormans Inc v. John Wiesman

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that under rational basis review, “[p]laintiffs have the burden to negate every conceivable basis which might support the rules . . . .” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)
• finding that the challenged “rules do not afford unfettered discretion that could lead to religious discrimination because the provisions are tied to particularized, objective criteria”
• stating that when a law is neutral and generally applicable it is reviewed for a rational basis
• describing how Lukumi requires analyzing “prohibitions on substantial, comparable secular conduct that would similarly threaten the government’s interest” (emphasis added)
• “The mere existence of an exemption that affords some minimal governmental discretion does not destroy a law’s general applicability.”
• “The time taken to travel to another pharmacy. . .may reduce the efficacy of those drugs”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).