# Barry Baker Anonymous 1 v. Adams County/ohio Valley School Board, Christine Armstrong, Kenneth W. Johnson, Intervening > Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · November 19, 2002 · 310 F.3d 927 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9495547 ## Case - **Full name:** Barry BAKER; Anonymous Plaintiff # 1, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ADAMS COUNTY/OHIO VALLEY SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant-Appellant, Christine Armstrong Et Al., Defendants, Kenneth W. Johnson Et Al., Intervening Defendants - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - **Decided:** November 19, 2002 - **Citations:** 310 F.3d 927; 54 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 452; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23744; 2002 WL 31553260 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Kennedy - **Judges:** Keith, Kennedy, Moore, Per Curiam - **Cited by:** 78 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9495547 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - noting that “[m]ere injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time and energy necessarily expended” in compliance with an injunction “are not enough [to preclude issuance]” - noting the party seeking a stay must demonstrate both “serious questions going to the merits and irreparable harm” (emphasis added) ## Opinion text KENNEDY, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I would grant the stay pending appeal on the condition that the School Board cover the Ten Commandment displays at the four Adams County High Schools during the pendency of the appeal. I would also advance the briefing schedule so that the appeal could be more promptly heard. The display in its present configuration, flanked by texts from other secular historical sources, can appear to (1) serve a secular purpose, (2) does not demonstrate an impermissible government purpose and (3) does not foster an excessive entanglement of government with religion. The majority acknowledges the school district has raised serious appellate issues. I would only add, in holding the present display unconstitutional, the district court relied heavily on the prior display of the Commandments alone to determine the second and third requirements of the Lemon test Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 , 91 S.Ct. 2105 , 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971). Here, the school district sought to remedy the prior unconstitutional display of the lone Ten Commandments by including a display of historical documents. In cases involving the display of creches, courts have permitted government bodies to add non-religious holiday 'symbols to create constitutional displays, or at least have not enjoined such displays because of earlier displays of a creche alone. I would agree that new monuments could be constructed if the stay is denied and it would not be irreparable if someone would be required to pay for it. In the ordinary case, the opposing party becomes liable for the damages suffered if the stay is denied and the party requesting it prevails. That is not the case here. “[T]he absence of a bond usually precludes an aggrieved party from recovering damages for the issuance of an injunction.” Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil 2d § 2973. 1 Defendant has no legal remedy for costs of replacement. Where there is a monetary loss and no basis on which to recover that monetary loss, the injury is irreparable. While defendants failed to include the offer to cover the Ten Commandments in their request to the district court for a stay, it seems like a practical and common sense solution and there is nothing to prevent our Court from accepting it. It will temporarily remove the harm of which de *932 fendants complain so they will not be injured during the appeal. . While there were exceptions, they would not appear to be applicable here. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9495547. Public record. Not legal advice.