§Why CasetextPricing

Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, Inc. et al v. City of Mobile, Alabama et al

MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

12 Cited authorities

  1. Cutter v. Wilkinson

    544 U.S. 709 (2005)   Cited 2,194 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that section 3 of the RULPA, which increased level of protection of prisoners' and other incarcerated persons' religious rights, did not violate the Establishment Clause

  2. City of Boerne v. Flores

    521 U.S. 507 (1997)   Cited 1,829 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that RFRA is unconstitutional in so far as it permits suits against state actors

  3. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

    573 U.S. 682 (2014)   Cited 785 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding that regulation at issue created a "substantial burden" under RFRA because the governmental action threatened penalties against religiously adherent employers who refused to provide contraceptive care as part of their heath provision plans, and therefore involved "coercion"

  4. Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside

    366 F.3d 1214 (11th Cir. 2004)   Cited 439 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a zoning ordinance that limited churches and synagogues to residential districts did not violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) because "walking a few extra blocks" is not a substantial burden

  5. United States v. Oakley

    744 F.2d 1553 (11th Cir. 1984)   Cited 478 times
    Recognizing that cross-motions may be probative of the absence of a factual dispute where they reflect general agreement by the parties as to the dispositive legal theories and material facts

  6. Catholic Charities of Diocese of Albany v. Serio

    7 N.Y.3d 510 (N.Y. 2006)   Cited 55 times
    Rejecting both strict scrutiny and Smith, and holding "that substantial deference is due [to] the Legislature, and that the party claiming an exemption bears the burden of showing that the challenged legislation, as applied to that party, is an unreasonable interference with religious freedom."

  7. United States v. Benz

    740 F.2d 903 (11th Cir. 1984)   Cited 64 times
    Explaining that severing the trials would not substantially limit the government's ability to introduce evidence or elicit testimony from the defendant

  8. International Telecommunications Exchange Corp. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.

    892 F. Supp. 1520 (N.D. Ga. 1995)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that plaintiff failed to establish an "evidentiary foundation from which the Court can determine whether the phone caller was an MCI employee," and thus the plaintiff could not avail himself of Rules 801(d)(C) or (D)

  9. Rule 7 - Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 7   Cited 7,878 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Defining "pleadings" for purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

  10. Section 2000cc - Protection of land use as religious exercise

    42 U.S.C. § 2000cc   Cited 2,991 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Requiring comparison with a "nonreligious assembly or institution"

  11. Section 2403 - Intervention by United States or a State; constitutional question

    28 U.S.C. § 2403   Cited 1,071 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Granting United States right to intervene in any proceeding in federal court in which the constitutionality of an Act of Congress affecting the public interest is in question and granting states right to intervene in actions challenging the constitutionality of state statutes

  12. Rule 5.1 - Constitutional Challenge to a Statute-Notice, Certification, and Intervention

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1   Cited 653 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Permitting the state attorney general to intervene when a party files a paper "drawing into question the constitutionality" of a state statute