Legal Opinion
Smith v. Community Board No. 14
New York Supreme Court
Decided July 8, 1985PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Aaron F. Goldstein, J.
In this action for a permanent injunction, plaintiffs move to restrain defendants from further construction, maintenance and use of an eruv on the grounds that plaintiffs’ rights have been violated under the establishment clause of US Constitution 1st Amendment, made applicable to the States by the due process clause of US Constitution 14th Amendment; NY Constitution, article I, § 3 and Administrative Code of the City of New York § 383-1.0. Plaintiffs further allege that defendant Community Board No. 14 improperly granted permission for defendant…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Lemon v. KurtzmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Everson v. Board of Ed. of EwingSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Walz v. Tax Comm'n of City of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Widmar v. VincentSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Lynch v. DonnellySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Tenafly Eruv Ass'n v. Borough of TenaflyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002
- Tenafly Eruv Association, Inc. v. The Borough Of TenaflyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002
- Jewish People for the Betterment of Westhampton Beach v. Village of Westhampton BeachCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2015
- American Civil Liberties Union v. City of Long BranchDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1987
- Tenafly Eruv Ass'n, Inc. v. Borough of TenaflyDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2001
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.