RIBOTSKY

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Lieutenant Mary Ogden v. The United States, 758 F.2d 1168 (7th Cir. 1985)
  …nte v. Larson, 637 F. 2d 562, 570 (8th Cir.1981), affirmed, 456 U.S. 228, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (solicitation of religious groups not automatically exempt from regulation); Espinosa v. Rusk, 634 F. 2d 477, 481, 483 (10th Cir.1980), affirmed, 456 U.S. 951, 102 S.Ct. 2025, 72 L.Ed.2d 477 (religious solicitation for “secular” purposes protected); Laycock, Towards A General Theory of the Religion Clauses: The Case of Church Labor Relations and the Right to Church Autonomy, 81 Colum.L.Rev. 1373, 1390, 14…
• Ass'n OF Cmty. Orgs. FOR Reform NOW v. Municipality OF Golden, 744 F.2d 739 (10th Cir. 1984)
  …urden of justification); Espinosa v. Rusk, 634 F. 2d 477, 482 (10th Cir.1980) (regulations which restrict exercise of First Amendment rights by requiring prior approval are suspect and face an unfavorable presumption of invalidity), summarily aff'd, 456 U.S. 951, 102 S.Ct. 2025, 72 L.Ed.2d 477 (1982). Laws which vest municipal officials with the discretion to grant or deny a license or permit do not regulate with narrow specificity. As the Court stated in Munson: But even if the Secretary were correct, an…
• Denver Post of the Nat'l Soc'y of the Volunteers of Am. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 732 F.2d 769 (10th Cir. 1984)
  …estions under the First Amendment, as well as the Colorado Constitution. Brief for the NLRB at 31; see NLRB v. St. Louis Christian Home, 663 F. 2d 60, 64 n. 6 (8th Cir.1981). . Espinosa v. Rusk, 634 F. 2d 477 (10th Cir.1980), aff'd without opinion, 456 U.S. 951, 102 S.Ct. 2025, 72 L.Ed.2d 477 (1982), cited by the VOA in support of its position, arose in a different context and does not apply here. . An exception to the VOA’s otherwise exclusive control over the tenure of its employees arises in cases of c…