Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Kentucky Office of Homeland Security v. Christerson
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Decided October 28, 2011No. Nos. 2009-CA-001650-MR, 2009-CA-001676-MRPublished
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partShake, Senior Judge
I concur with the portion of the majority opinion which affirms that portion of the Franklin Circuit Court’s judgment which found that American Atheists lacked standing based on its claim for damages by its members. However, I dissent from the remainder of the opinion.
I adopt the sound reasoning of the trial court. The trial court analyzed KRS 39G.010 under the Lemon test and the statute was found to have the impermissible effect of endorsing religion because it was enacted for a predominantly religious purpose and conveyed a message of mandatory religious belief. See Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lemon v. KurtzmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky.Supreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Stone v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Van Orden v. PerrySupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- Salazar v. BuonoSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.