basis of religious doctrine in California

11 California opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2024 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
Jones v. Wolfgreen scotus · 1979 · cited in 9 California opinions naming this issue, 1991–2024 2 sentences 2024“The State has an obvious and legitimate interest in the peaceful resolution of property disputes, and in providing a civil forum where the ownership of church property can be determined conclusively.” (Jones v. Wolf (1979) 443 U.S. 595, 602 (Jones).) But “ ‘the First Amendment severely circumscribes the role that civil courts may play in resolving church property disputes.’ [Citation.] Most importantly, the First Amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving church property disputes on the basis of religious doctrine and practice. [Citations.] As a corollary to this commandment, the [First] 2022In the context of resolving church property disputes, “the United States Supreme Court has made two points clear: (1) how state courts resolve [such] disputes is a matter of state law; but (2) the method a state chooses must not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.” (Episcopal Church Cases, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 478- 479, fn. omitted.) Elaborating on these points, our Supreme Court again quoted from 13 Jones v. Wolf, supra, 443 U.S. at page 602 : “ ‘[T]he First Amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving church property disputes on the basis of religious doctri	4	9
Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v. Milivojevichgreen scotus · 1976 · cited in 2 California opinions naming this issue, 1991–2008 2 sentences 2008(Serbian Eastern, supra, 426 U.S. at p. 709 .) “[T]he First Amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving church property disputes on the basis of religious doctrine and practice.” (Jones, supra, 443 U.S. at p. 602 ; see California-Nevada Annual Conf. of the United Methodist Church v. St. 1991Hunt ed. 1901).) The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that the First Amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving issues on the basis of religious doctrine or practice matters which concern theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of a religion to the standard of morals required of them. ( Watson v. Jones, supra, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at pp. 733-734 [ 20 L.Ed. at p. 678 ]; Serbian Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich (1976) 426 U.S. 696, 713-716 [ 49 L.Ed.2d 151, 165-167 , 96 S.Ct. 2372 ]; Jones v. Wolf (1979) 44	1	2
Md. & Va. Churches v. Sharpsburg Ch.green scotus · 1970 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009 2 sentences 2009Indeed, `a State may adopt any one of various approaches for settling church property disputes so long as it involves no consideration of doctrinal matters, whether the ritual and liturgy of worship or the tenets of faith.'" ( Jones v. Wolf, supra, 443 U.S. at p. 602 , quoting Md. & Va. Churches v. Sharpsburg Ch. (1970) 396 U.S. 367, 368 [ 24 L.Ed.2d 582 , 90 S.Ct. 499 ] (conc. opn. of Brennan, J.).) The high court found invalid, for example, a method used in Georgia whereby "the right to the property previously used by the local churches was made to turn on a civil court jury decision as to w 2009Indeed, `a State may adopt any one of various approaches for settling church property disputes so long as it involves no consideration of doctrinal matters, whether the ritual and liturgy of worship or the tenets of faith.'" ( Jones v. Wolf, supra, 443 U.S. at p. 602 , quoting Md. & Va. Churches v. Sharpsburg Ch. (1970) 396 U.S. 367, 368 [ 24 L.Ed.2d 582 , 90 S.Ct. 499 ] (conc. opn. of Brennan, J.).) The high court found invalid, for example, a method used in Georgia whereby "the right to the property previously used by the local churches was made to turn on a civil court jury decision as to w	1	1
California-Nevada Annual Conference of United Methodist Church v. St. Luke's United Methodist Churchgreen calctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 California opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008Luke’s United Methodist Church (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 754, 762-763 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 442 ] (California-Nevada).) The high court in Jones noted this tension between allowing courts to apply neutral principles of law and at the same time deferring to ecclesiastical determinations: “The State has an obvious and legitimate interest in the peaceful resolution of property disputes, and in providing a civil forum where the ownership of church property can be determined conclusively. [Citation.] [f] It is also clear, however, that ‘the First Amendment severely circumscribes the role that civil courts m 2008Luke’s United Methodist Church (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 754, 762-763 [ 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 442 ] (California-Nevada).) The high court in Jones noted this tension between allowing courts to apply neutral principles of law and at the same time deferring to ecclesiastical determinations: “The State has an obvious and legitimate interest in the peaceful resolution of property disputes, and in providing a civil forum where the ownership of church property can be determined conclusively. [Citation.] [f] It is also clear, however, that ‘the First Amendment severely circumscribes the role that civil courts m	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

Case	Cited	Years
Watson v. Jones green scotus · 1872 2 sentences 2014In this regard, the United States Supreme Court has made two points clear: (1) how state courts resolve church property disputes is a matter of state law; but (2) the method a state chooses must not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. ‘[T]he First Amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving church property disputes on the basis of religious doctrine and practice. [Citations.] As a corollary to this commandment, the Amendment requires that civil courts defer to the resolution of issues of religious doctrine or polity by the highest court of a hierarchical church o 2014In this regard, the United States Supreme Court has made two points clear: (1) how state courts resolve church property disputes is a matter of state law; but (2) the method a state chooses must not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. ‘[T]he First Amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving church property disputes on the basis of religious doctrine and practice. [Citations.] As a corollary to this commandment, the Amendment requires that civil courts defer to the resolution of issues of religious doctrine or polity by the highest court of a hierarchical church o	2	1991–2014
Episcopal Church Cases green cal · 2009 2 sentences 2014In this regard, the United States Supreme Court has made two points clear: (1) how state courts resolve church property disputes is a matter of state law; but (2) the method a state chooses must not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. ‘[T]he First Amendment prohibits civil courts from resolving church property disputes on the basis of religious doctrine and practice. [Citations.] As a corollary to this commandment, the Amendment requires that civil courts defer to the resolution of issues of religious doctrine or polity by the highest court of a hierarchical church o 2014(Episcopal Church Cases, supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 480 .) Under the principle of government approach, if the church at issue is a hierarchical 20 church, “whenever the questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final, and as binding on them, in their application to the case before them.” (Watson v. Jones, supra, 80 U.S. at p. 727 .) Under the neutral principles of law approach, the court examines the organizations’	2	2013–2014
Gipe v. Superior Court green calctapp · 1981 1 sentence 1999(Jones v. Wolf, supra, 443 U.S. at p. 602 [ 99 S.Ct. at p. 3025 ]; Gipe v. Superior Court, supra, 124 Cal.App.3d at pp. 627-628.) “ ‘However, when the dispute to be resolved is essentially ownership or right to possession of property, the civil courts appropriately adjudicate the controversy even though it may arise out of a dispute over doctrine or other *365 ecclesiastical question, provided the court can resolve the property dispute without attempting to resolve the underlying ecclesiastical controversy. [Citations.]’ ” (Gipe v. Superior Court, supra, 124 Cal.App.3d at p. 628 .) Such disput	1	1999–1999
Presbytery of Riverside v. Community Church of Palm Springs green calctapp · 1979 2 sentences 1991The third opinion focused on by the Court of Appeal in the Protestant Episcopal Church case was Presbytery of Riverside v. Community Church of Palm Springs (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 910 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 854 ], which was decided before the opinion in Jones . 1991The third opinion focused on by the Court of Appeal in the Protestant Episcopal Church case was Presbytery of Riverside v. Community Church of Palm Springs (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 910 [ 152 Cal.Rptr. 854 ], which was decided before the opinion in Jones .	1	1991–1991
United States v. Conwell green ca3 · 1986 1 sentence 1991A similar argument alleging excessive entanglement was rejected in Turner v. Parsons (E.D.Pa. 1985) 620 F. Supp. 138 , affirmed (3d Cir.1986) 787 F.2d 584 , certiorari denied 476 U.S. 1160 [ 90 L.Ed.2d 722 , 106 S.Ct. 2280 ].	1	1991–1991
Turner v. Parsons green paed · 1985 1 sentence 1991A similar argument alleging excessive entanglement was rejected in Turner v. Parsons (E.D.Pa. 1985) 620 F. Supp. 138 , affirmed (3d Cir.1986) 787 F.2d 584 , certiorari denied 476 U.S. 1160 [ 90 L.Ed.2d 722 , 106 S.Ct. 2280 ].	1	1991–1991
E. B. v. Burlington County Welfare Agency green scotus · 1986 1 sentence 1991A similar argument alleging excessive entanglement was rejected in Turner v. Parsons (E.D.Pa. 1985) 620 F. Supp. 138 , affirmed (3d Cir.1986) 787 F.2d 584 , certiorari denied 476 U.S. 1160 [ 90 L.Ed.2d 722 , 106 S.Ct. 2280 ].	1	1991–1991
Schreiber v. Chase Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n green scotus · 1986 1 sentence 1991A similar argument alleging excessive entanglement was rejected in Turner v. Parsons (E.D.Pa. 1985) 620 F. Supp. 138 , affirmed (3d Cir.1986) 787 F.2d 584 , certiorari denied 476 U.S. 1160 [ 90 L.Ed.2d 722 , 106 S.Ct. 2280 ].	1	1991–1991
Kennedy v. General Services Administration green scotus · 1986 1 sentence 1991A similar argument alleging excessive entanglement was rejected in Turner v. Parsons (E.D.Pa. 1985) 620 F. Supp. 138 , affirmed (3d Cir.1986) 787 F.2d 584 , certiorari denied 476 U.S. 1160 [ 90 L.Ed.2d 722 , 106 S.Ct. 2280 ].	1	1991–1991

Where else courts name it

TX 13 (2002–2025) CA 11 (1991–2024) IL 10 (1979–2011) MI 5 (2009–2017) NY 5 (1985–2010) LA 5 (1982–2015) TN 3 (2012–2025) IN 3 (1981–2012) VA 3 (2008–2024) GA 2 (1979–2011) AR 2 (2008–2009) MD 2 (1994–2020) CO 2 (1986–2020) OR 2 (2011–2012) SC 2 (1996–2017) NJ 2 (1980–2020) WI 2 (2000–2024) MT 2 (2005–2014)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check