Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFoley, Sean
dc.date.accessioned2016-02-16T22:17:07Z
dc.date.available2016-02-16T22:17:07Z
dc.date.issued2011-10-01
dc.identifier.citationFoley, Sean. "RLUIPA's Equal-Terms Provision's Troubling Definition of Equal: Why the Equal-Terms Provision Must Be Interpreted Narrowly". Kansas Law Review, Kansas Law Review Inc. October, 2011: vol. 60(1).en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1808/20204
dc.descriptionThis is the published version.en_US
dc.publisherKansas Law Review Incen_US
dc.relation.isversionofhttp://law.ku.edu/kansas-law-review-issues#
dc.titleRLUIPA's Equal-Terms Provision's Troubling Definition of Equal: Why the Equal-Terms Provision Must Be Interpreted Narrowlyen_US
dc.typeArticle
kusw.kudepartmentLaw
dc.identifier.doi10.17161/1808.20204
kusw.oapolicyThis item does not meet KU Open Access policy criteria.
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccess


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record