Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Some scholars understand the endorsement test as an addition to standards outlined in Lemon, while others view it as a minimal formulation of Lemon, i.e., that while endorsement may not be the only thing that violates the purpose and effects prongs of the Lemon test, it is the first and most important evidence that such a violation has occurred.
Reckitt & Colman Ltd v Borden Inc 1 All ER 873, – also known as the Jif Lemon case – is a leading decision of the House of Lords on the tort of passing off. The Court reaffirmed the three part test (reputation and goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage) in order to establish a claim of passing off. Background per Slade LJ: Reckitt, sold lemon juice under the name "Jif Lemon" which came in ...
The Miller test, also called the three-prong obscenity test, is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited.
"Lemon, of course, was the case that announced the much-maligned three-part 'Lemon test' for assessing a statute's constitutionality under the Establishment Clause. 3" (fee required to access) Case Western Reserve Law Review.
The Lemon test has been criticized by justices and legal scholars, but it has remained the predominant means by which the Court enforced the Establishment Clause. [61] In Agostini v. Felton (1997), the entanglement prong of the Lemon test was converted to simply being a factor in determining the effect of the challenged statute or practice. [38]
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. [1] The court ruled in an 8–0 decision that Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act (represented through David Kurtzman) from 1968 was unconstitutional and in an 8–1 decision that Rhode Island's 1969 Salary Supplement Act was unconstitutional, violating the ...
The court ruled that the exemption permitted by section 702 violated the second prong of the Lemon test (principal effect not advancing or inhibiting religion) because the section "singles out religious entities for a benefit, rather than benefiting a broad grouping of which religious organizations are only a part" and "burdens the free ...
This page was last edited on 4 November 2007, at 01:31 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License; additional terms may apply.