State v. . Massey
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith (Supreme Court of the United States 1990)
- McDaniel v. Paty (Supreme Court of the United States 1978)
- Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Princeton, NJ v. Kugler (District Court, D. New Jersey 1972)
- Department of Civil Rights Ex Rel. Parks v. General Motors Corp. (Mich. 1982)
- In re Quinlan (N.J. 1976)
- In re Dell (Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas 1975)
- John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital v. Heston (N.J. 1971)
- State v. Eitel (Fla. 1969)
- State v. Rhinehart (Wash. 1967)
- State Ex Rel. Swann v. Pack (Tenn. 1975)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The ordinance inveighs against the handling of venomous and poisonous reptiles in such manner as to endanger the public health, safety and welfare, and none other.
The police are required to seize reptiles handled in an exposed way and have them examined by the health department. If found to be venomous they are to be destroyed ; otherwise they are to be returned to the one from whom they were taken. Manifestly, then, the ordinance was enacted as a protective measure and its primary purpose is not to interfere with any ritual which the defendants may wish to observe. They are at liberty to handle reptiles in public, if they so desire; provided the reptiles are harmless to human safety, health and welfare.
The defendants say, however, that the handling of poisonous reptiles without harm to themselves or others is the power which they are commanded to show to the people, and to extract the venom of the reptiles renders them useless for such purpose. It was suggested on the argument by the defendants in person that in all probability we would not understand this. Even so, as a matter of law the case comes to a very simple question : Which is superior, the public safety or the defendants’ religious practice ? The authorities are at one in holding that the safety of the public comes first. Kirk v. Com. of Virginia, 186 Va. 839, 44 S. E. (2) 409; Lawson v. Com. of Kentucky, 291 Ky. 437, 164 S. W. (2) 972; Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 163, 25 L. Ed. 244; Latter-Day Saints v. United States, 136 U. S. 49, 34 L. Ed. 478.
No detailed analysis of the ordinance is required since the defendants concede that unless it impinge on their freedom of religious worship, they are in defiance of its terms.
The record is devoid of any reversible error, hence the verdicts and judgments will be upheld.
No error.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.