CordRL (1990). Interpreting the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment: A “non-absolute separationist” approach, Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, IV (3 & 4), 731-747.
4.
Da Capo Press (1967). The Bible in the public schools: Arguments before the Superior Court of Cincinnati in the case of Minor v. Board of Education of Cincinnati (1879) with the opinion on appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio . New York: Da Capo Press.
5.
Edwards v. Aguillard, 107 S.Ct. 2573 (1987).
6.
EsbeckEH (1990). The Lemon test: Should it be retained, reformulated or rejected?Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, IV. 513-548.
7.
Everson v. Board of Education. 67 S.Ct. 504 (1947).
8.
FournierKA (1992). In the wake of Weisman: The Lemon testis still a lemon, but the psychocoercion test is more bitter still. Regent University Law Review, 2, 1-38.
9.
Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Louis Grumet, 114 S.Ct. 2481 (1994).
10.
Lambs Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 113 S.Ct. 2141 (1993).
11.
Lee v. Weisman, 112 S.Ct. 2649 (1992).
12.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971).
13.
LinesPM (1990). Three criteria for constitutional interpretation: Predictability, flexibility and intelligibility. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy. IV. 549-565.
14.
MarksWP.IV (1993). Casenote: The Lemon test rears its ugly head again: Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District. University of Richmond Law Review, 27, 1153-1171.
15.
Mozert v. Hawkins, 827 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1987).
16.
PfefferL (1990). The establishment clause: An absolutist’s defense. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, IV, 699-729.
