The law established a three-pronged test to determine which clubs conduct so much business activity that they are not truly private organizations and therefore must not discriminate against women or minorities.

In the United States, the courts use a three-pronged test to determine whether a corporation is vicariously liable for the acts of its employees:

Currently, the Supreme Court applies a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause, known as the "Lemon Test".

The Princeton case led to a three-pronged test to balance free speech and private property rights.

The Court has applied a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause.

The court articulated a three-pronged test for heightened scrutiny.

Hotz' lawyer notes that a three-pronged test must be applied for personal jurisdiction, with all being satisfied in the eyes of the court.

James Carmine, chair of Carlow University's philosophy department, proposes a three-pronged test to distinguish "authentic" religions from pseudoreligions:

In MacLennan v. Produits Gilbert Inc., the court established a three-pronged test to determine whether there has been an inducement:

The Brown case drew national attention because the three-pronged test from the Office for the Civil Rights was upheld.