Grunwald v Bornfreund
Eastern District Court of New York 696 F.Supp. 838
In action under RICO and state law, plaintiff
moved for writ of mandate prohibiting rabbinical congress and defendants from
making any efforts to have plaintiff withdraw action and submit it to
rabbinical court and from excommunicating plaintiff, his counsel and staff. The District Court, Sifton,
J., held that: (1) it was beyond the powers of court to stop excommunication so long as excommunication results of nothing more than plaintiff being excluded from his
religious community, and (2) allegations that plaintiff will suffer battery,
trespass or theft in the absence of religious prohibition against those acts
did not warrant injunction in absence of showing that such injury was imminent
or likely.
Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, inc v Waldner
Supreme Court of South Dakota 791 N.W. 2d 169
Background: Members of one faction of communal
religious colony brought action against opposing faction, seeking resolution of
governance dispute. The Fifth Judicial Circuit Court, Brown County, Jack R. Von Wald, J., dismissed complaint for lack of
jurisdiction, concluding that the matter involved a religious dispute.
Plaintiff faction appealed.
Holding: The Supreme Court, Zinter, J., held that state courts had no
jurisdiction to consider governance dispute between the factions, as resolution
of the governance question was dependent upon resolution of religious disputes.
Tran v Fiorenza
Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st District)
934 S.W. 2d 740
Priest brought defamation action against
bishop and diocese of church, to recover for communications by bishop that
priest was excommunicated. The 333rd District Court, Harris County, J.S. Blackburn, J.,
granted summary judgment for bishop and diocese. The Court of Appeals, Taft, J., held that issue of whether priest was actually excommunicated was ecclesiastical matter, such that First Amendment barred
action.
Korean Presbyterian Church of Seattle
Normalization Committee v Lee
Court of Appeals of Washington Division 1 75
Wash.App. 833
Excommunicated church members sued church and church officials for tort of
outrage for announcing excommunications to congregation from pulpit. The Superior Court, Snohomish
County, Larry McKeeman, J., denied defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs
appealed. The Court of Appeals, Kennedy, J., held that ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precluded
recovery.
O’Connor v Diocese of Honolulu
Supreme Court of Hawaii 77 Hawai’I 383
Catholic newspaper publisher brought action
against diocese and various diocesan officials, claiming that he was wrongfully excommunicated due to diocese's opposition to views expressed in his newspaper.
The First Circuit Court, City and County of Honolulu, dismissed with prejudice,
and publisher appealed. The Supreme Court, Moon, C.J., held that ecclesiastical abstention doctrine embodied in
both State and Federal Constitutions barred state court from addressing any of
publisher's claims because their resolution would require resolution of
controversies over church doctrine, law, or polity.
Ming Tung v China Buddhist Association
Supreme Court,Appellate Division, Fist
Department, New York 124 A.D. 3d 13
Background: Members of religious organization until
they were excommunicatedcommenced proceeding under Article 78, seeking
an order directing organization to hold an annual membership meeting, as
required by its bylaws, appoint a receiver to determine names and addresses of
all its members eligible to vote, and hold a vote regarding its future. The
Supreme Court, New York County, Geoffrey D. Wright, J., 2012 WL 11946612, granted the petition to extent of
invalidating organization's membership meeting and directing that another
general meeting be held with members included. Organization appealed.
Holding: The Supreme Court, Appellate
Division, Gische, J., held that members' petition
presented nonjusticiable religious issues that could not be resolved through
application of neutral principles of law.
Anderson V Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York,
Inc.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee 2007 WL 161035 (Only the
westlaw citation is currently available)
No Synopsis is available on Westlaw at this time
You may want to make special
note of this one as the suit was for intentional infliction of emotional
distress
Marks v Estate of Hartgerink
Surpeme Court of Iowa 528 N.W.2d 539
After he was disciplined and ultimately excommunicated by church, former member brought action against church officials
for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Church
officials moved for summary judgment, and the District Court, Butler County,
B.H. McKinley, J., granted motion.
Former member appealed, and the Supreme Court, Andreasen, J., held that: (1) decision of church to excommunicatemember was
purely ecclesiastical decision with which court would not interfere; (2)
letters which had been sent only to member had not been published and could not
give rise to defamation action; (3) oral communications to other church members
that member had been disciplined and excommunicated were true and were absolutely protected; (4) qualified privilege
attaches to statements made in context of church disciplinary proceeding or
during course of ecclesiastical trial; (5) statements were not made with actual
malice and were privileged as evidence presented to establish actual malice was
evidence of conduct of persons who were not defendants and was irrelevant; and
(6) conduct of church officials did not give rise to action for intentional
infliction of emotional distress.
Hadnot v Shaw
Supreme Court of Oklahoma 826 P.2d 978
Excommunicated members of church brought tort action against church and lay
leaders. The District Court, Grady County, James R.
Winchester, J., granted summary
judgment for defendants, and appeal was taken. The Supreme Court, Opala, C.J., held that: (1) summary judgment was not prematurely
rendered, and (2) parishioners were entitled to opportunity to discover whether
conduct outside of church's First Amendment privilege occurred.
Davis v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints
Supreme Court of Montana 258Mont. 286
Church member sued church for breach of
fiduciary duty, fraud and negligent misrepresentation, and intentional
infliction of emotional distress. The District Court, Eleventh Judicial
District, Flathead County, Leif B. Erickson, J., dismissed all claims except that for breach of fiduciary
duty, and both parties appealed. The Supreme Court, Weber, J.,
held that: (1) court properly dismissed claims; (2) fact issues precluded
summary judgment on fiduciary duty claim; (3) evidence of religious sanctions
imposed was inadmissible; (4) member could recover for pain and suffering; and
(5) doctrine of charitable immunity did
not exist in Montana.
You may want to make special note of this one as the suit was
for intentional infliction of emotional distress
Thomas v Fuerst
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District,
Fifth Division 345Ill.App.3d 929
Background: Plaintiff, a member of an orthodox
Jewish community, brought claims of libel, violation of due process, and
intentional infliction of emotional distress against members of rabbinic court
in connection with plaintiff's excommunication from community. The Circuit Court, Cook County, Lynn M. Egan, J., granted motion to dismiss. Plaintiff appealed.
Holdings: The Appellate Court, Sheila M. O'Brien, J., held that:
1 libel claims were barred by First Amendment because truth
or falsity of statements at issue could not be determined without extensive
inquiry into religious law and polity;
2 excommunication did not violate due process; and
3 excommunication was not so outrageous as to support
claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
You may want to make special note of this one as the suit was
for intentional infliction of emotional distress
Guinn V church of Christ of Collinsville
Supreme Court of Oklahoma 775P.2d 766
Former member of
religious congregation brought personal injury action against church elders for
their alleged “invasion of privacy” and “intentional infliction of
emotional distress” in continuing to denounce member as “fornicator” even after
she had withdrawn from church. The District Court, Tulsa County, Tony M.
Graham, J., entered judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendants appealed.
The Supreme Court, Opala, V.C.J., held that: (1) elders' disciplinary actions
against member of church congregation prior to her withdrawal from church,
consisting of their meetings with member to confront her with her sin and to
request that she repent, were shielded from judicial scrutiny by free exercise
clause of First Amendment; (2) elders' continued denunciation of member after
she had withdrawn from church was not protected by First Amendment; and (3)
church elders did not enjoy either an absolute or a qualified privilege to
continue to denounce member after she had terminated membership in church.
You may want to make special note of this one as the suit was
for intentional infliction of emotional distress
Burgess v Rock Creek Baptist Church
United States Distict Court, District of Columbia 734F.Supp.
30
Former church member
brought suit against church and its officials seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief and damages for the defendants' alleged intentional
infliction of emotional distress in terminating her
membership and treating her as a nonmember. Upon defendants' motion for summary
judgment, the District Court, Charles R. Richey, J., held that dispute regarding
propriety of church officials' termination of plaintiff's church membership was
a matter of “ecclesiastical cognizance” that district court was precluded from
adjudicating pursuant to separation of church and state compelled by First
Amendment.
Pfeil v St Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church of Unaltered
Augsburg Confession of Worthington
Supreme Court of Minnesota 877N.W.2d 528
Background: Former parishioners brought action
against church and its pastors for defamation and negligence. The District
Court, Nobles County, dismissed claims. Former parishioners appealed. The Court
of Appeals, 2015 WL 134055, affirmed. Former parishioners sought review.
Holding: The Supreme Court, Anderson, J., held that under First Amendment, pastors and church were
not liable for statements made during course of formal church discipline
proceedings.
Williams v Gleason
Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th
District) 26 S.W. 3d54
Church members filed
claims against church's elders and others for libel, slander, and other torts
related to disciplinary action brought by church's elders against
members. The District Court, Harris County, Katie Kennedy, J., entered summary judgment for defendants.
Members appealed. The Court of Appeals, Joe L. Draughn, J. (Assigned), held
that: (1) members failed to establish prima facie tort case against individual
defendants given that appellate court was constitutionally prohibited from
exercising subject matter jurisdiction over ecclesiastical dispute, and (2)
members could not involve state in ecclesiastical government by using civil
justice system to review ecclesiastical judicatory's action.
Cassell v Christin Science Board of Directors
Appeals Court of Massachusetts 81Mass.App.Ct 1114
(Unplublisehd Opinion)
No synopsis available at this time
