# Council for Secular Humanism, Inc. v. McNeil

> District Court of Appeal of Florida · April 27, 2010 · 44 So. 3d 112

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9783200

## Case

- **Full name:** COUNCIL FOR SECULAR HUMANISM, INC., Richard Hull and Elaine Hull, Appellants, v. Walter A. McNEIL, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of Corrections of Florida; Prisoners of Christ, Inc., a Florida Corporation; And Lamb of God Ministries, Inc. a Florida Corporation, Appellees
- **Court:** District Court of Appeal of Florida
- **Decided:** April 27, 2010
- **Citations:** 44 So. 3d 112; 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 5546; 2010 WL 1658788
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Padovano, Browning, Edwin, Wolf, Kahn, Webster, Benton, Van Nortwick, Clark, Lewis, Wetherell, Thomas, Hawkes, Roberts, Rowe, Marstiller
- **Cited by:** 9 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/9783200

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that an inquiry under the no-aid provision “necessarily will be case-by-case and will consider such matters as whether the government-funded program is used to promote the religion of the provider, is significantly sectarian in nature, involves religious indoctrinat…
- holding that taxpayers had standing under the no-aid provision to challenge the constitutionality of statutes that authorized the state to direct appropriations to sectarian institutions

## Opinion text

On Motion for Rehearing En Banc
The motion for rehearing en banc filed by appellees on December 29, 2009, the response of the appellants thereto, and the request for a vote by a judge in regular active service on this court have been considered by all judges of the court who are in regular active service and who are not disqualified. See rule 9.331(d)(a), Fla. R.App. P. Less than a majority of those judges have voted in favor of rehearing en banc. Accordingly, the motion for rehearing en banc is denied.
WOLF, KAHN, WEBSTER, BENTON, VAN NORTWICK, PADOVANO and CLARK, JJ., concur. LEWIS and WETHERELL, JJ., dissent. THOMAS, J., dissents with opinion with which HAWKES, C.J., and ROBERTS, ROWE and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9783200. Public record. Not legal advice.