This HTML5 document contains 120 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dcthttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
n14https://scholar.google.com/
yago-reshttp://yago-knowledge.org/resource/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n22https://archive.org/details/constitutionreli0000unse/page/
n21https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
umbel-rchttp://umbel.org/umbel/rc/
yagohttp://dbpedia.org/class/yago/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
n20http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep310/usrep310296/
freebasehttp://rdf.freebase.com/ns/
n25https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/310/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
n23https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/310/296/
n4https://web.archive.org/web/20071013185920/http:/www.time.com/time/magazine/article/
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
n17https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
n8https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/103355/cantwell-v-connecticut/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Cantwell_v._Connecticut
rdf:type
dbo:SupremeCourtOfTheUnitedStatesCase owl:Thing yago:PsychologicalFeature100023100 yago:YagoPermanentlyLocatedEntity umbel-rc:Event yago:Happening107283608 yago:Abstraction100002137 dbo:LegalCase dbo:UnitOfWork yago:Event100029378 yago:Case107308889 wikidata:Q2334719 dbo:Case yago:WikicatUnitedStatesSupremeCourtCases
rdfs:label
Cantwell v. Connecticut
rdfs:comment
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), is a landmark court decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment's federal protection of religious free exercise incorporates via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and so applies to state governments too.
foaf:name
Newton Cantwell, et al. v. State of Connecticut
dct:subject
dbc:United_States_Free_Speech_Clause_case_law dbc:Incorporation_case_law dbc:United_States_free_exercise_of_religion_case_law dbc:History_of_New_Haven,_Connecticut dbc:American_Civil_Liberties_Union_litigation dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Hughes_Court dbc:1940_in_Connecticut dbc:Christianity_and_law_in_the_20th_century dbc:Jehovah's_Witnesses_litigation_in_the_United_States dbc:Legal_history_of_Connecticut dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:1940_in_United_States_case_law
dbo:wikiPageID
5100430
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1103134542
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Approaches_to_evangelism dbr:United_States_Constitution dbr:Roman_Catholic dbc:United_States_Free_Speech_Clause_case_law dbr:Connecticut_Supreme_Court dbr:American_Law_Reports dbr:Breach_of_the_peace dbc:United_States_free_exercise_of_religion_case_law dbr:Certiorari dbc:Incorporation_case_law dbr:First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:Establishment_Clause dbr:Owen_Roberts dbr:Consumer_protection dbc:History_of_New_Haven,_Connecticut dbr:A.2d dbr:Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment dbc:American_Civil_Liberties_Union_litigation dbr:Organized_religion dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases_of_the_Hughes_Court dbr:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States dbr:Jehovah's_Witnesses dbr:Lawyers'_Edition dbr:List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States dbc:Christianity_and_law_in_the_20th_century dbr:Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights) dbr:LexisNexis dbr:New_Haven dbc:1940_in_Connecticut dbc:United_States_Supreme_Court_cases dbc:Jehovah's_Witnesses_litigation_in_the_United_States dbr:Common-law dbc:Legal_history_of_Connecticut dbr:R.A.V._v._City_of_St._Paul dbr:Free_Exercise_Clause dbr:Due_Process_Clause dbr:Inhibition_(law) dbr:Connecticut dbc:1940_in_United_States_case_law dbr:Everson_v._Board_of_Education
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n4:0,9171,763796,00.html n8: n14:scholar_case%3Fcase=10099999677896592458 n20:usrep310296.pdf n22:420 n23: n25:296 n17:310us296
owl:sameAs
yago-res:Cantwell_v._Connecticut freebase:m.0d2ngd n21:4ev1i wikidata:Q5034088
dbp:subsequent
None
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Reflist dbt:Wikisource-inline dbt:Cite_book dbt:US1stAmendment dbt:Ussc dbt:Infobox_SCOTUS_case dbt:Caselaw_source
dbp:joinmajority
unanimous
dbp:lawsapplied
dbr:First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution dbr:United_States_Constitution dbr:Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
dbp:oyez
n17:310us296
dbp:parallelcitations
60
dbp:prior
17280.0
dbp:uspage
296
dbp:usvol
310
dbp:arguedate
0001-03-29
dbp:argueyear
1940
dbp:case
Cantwell v. Connecticut,
dbp:courtlistener
n8:
dbp:decidedate
0001-05-20
dbp:decideyear
1940
dbp:fullname
Newton Cantwell, et al. v. State of Connecticut
dbp:holding
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.
dbp:justia
n23:
dbp:litigants
Cantwell v. Connecticut
dbp:majority
Roberts
dbp:loc
n20:usrep310296.pdf
dbo:abstract
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), is a landmark court decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment's federal protection of religious free exercise incorporates via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and so applies to state governments too.
dbp:cornell
n25:296
dbp:googlescholar
n14:scholar_case%3Fcase=10099999677896592458
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Cantwell_v._Connecticut?oldid=1103134542&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
10247
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Cantwell_v._Connecticut