11 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2024 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Bhatti v. Singhgreen2 sentences2022“Ohio appellate courts have fashioned the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine into a two-part test to determine whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a church dispute.” Harrison at ¶ 41, citing Bhatti v. Singh, 148 Ohio App.3d 386 , 2002-Ohio-3348 , 773 N.E.2d 605, ¶ 25 (12th Dist.). 2022“Ohio appellate courts have fashioned the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine into a two-part test to determine whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a church dispute.” Harrison at ¶ 41, citing Bhatti v. Singh, 148 Ohio App.3d 386 , 2002-Ohio-3348 , 773 N.E.2d 605, ¶ 25 (12th Dist.). | 2 | 4 |
Hutchison v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2022No. CA2018-03-050, 2018-Ohio-4658, ¶ 16 , quoting Hutchison v. Thomas, 789 F.2d 392, 396 (6th Cir.1986) (noting "the 'neutral principles' exception to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine' applies only to cases involving disputes over church property' * * * [and the doctrine] 'has never been extended to religious controversies in the areas of church government, order and discipline, nor should it be' "). 2018However, the "neutral principles" exception to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine "applies only to cases involving disputes over church property." Hutchison v. Thomas , 789 F.2d 392 , 396 (6th Cir.1986), discussing Jones v. Wolf , 443 U.S. 595 , 99 S.Ct. 3020 , 61 L.Ed.2d 775 (1979). | 2 | 2 |
Howard v. Covenant Apostolic Church, Inc.green2 sentences2018See, e.g. , Howard v. Covenant Apostolic Church , 124 Ohio App.3d 24 , 30, 705 N.E.2d 385 (1st Dist.1997) ; Salzgaber v. First Christian Church , 65 Ohio App.3d 368 , 373, 583 N.E.2d 1361 (4th Dist.1989) ; Yaggie v. Indiana-Kentucky Synod Evangelical Lutheran Church in Am. , 860 F.Supp. 1194 , 1199 (W.D.Ky.1994). {¶ 20} Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. 2018See, e.g. , Howard v. Covenant Apostolic Church , 124 Ohio App.3d 24 , 30, 705 N.E.2d 385 (1st Dist.1997) ; Salzgaber v. First Christian Church , 65 Ohio App.3d 368 , 373, 583 N.E.2d 1361 (4th Dist.1989) ; Yaggie v. Indiana-Kentucky Synod Evangelical Lutheran Church in Am. , 860 F.Supp. 1194 , 1199 (W.D.Ky.1994). {¶ 20} Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. | 2 | 2 |
Plough v. Lavellegreen2 sentences2017See Plough v. Lavelle, 170 Ohio App.3d 720 , 2006-Ohio-6200, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.). {¶ 11} Appellant asserts that this court's decision in Zhelezny establishes the limits of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and that, under the reasoning of Zhelezny, the common pleas court had jurisdiction over his claims. 2017See Plough v. Lavelle, 170 Ohio App.3d 720 , 2006-Ohio-6200, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.). {¶ 11} Appellant asserts that this court's decision in Zhelezny establishes the limits of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and that, under the reasoning of Zhelezny, the common pleas court had jurisdiction over his claims. | 2 | 2 |
Harrison v. Bishopgreen2 sentences2024“It is of the essence of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism itself provides for.” Id. {¶27} “Ohio appellate courts have fashioned the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine into a two-part test to determine whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a church dispute.” Harrison v. Bishop, 2015-Ohio-5308, ¶ 41 (6th Dist.), citing Bhatti v. Singh, 2002-Ohio-3348 , ¶ 25 (12th Dist. 2022Harrison v. Bishop, 2015-Ohio-5308 , 44 N.E.3d 350 , ¶ 19 (6th Dist.). | 1 | 2 |
Lin v. Gatehouse Construction Co.green1 sentence2022Co., 84 Ohio App.3d 96, 99 (8th Dist.1992). {¶ 16} As noted, the trial court determined it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over several of appellant's claims based on the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
Heard v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2019See Heard v. Johnson, 810 A.2d 871, 879 (D.C.2002). | 1 | 1 |
Yaggie v. Indiana-Kentucky Synod Evangelical Lutheran Church in Americagreen2 sentences2018See, e.g., Howard v. Covenant Apostolic Church, 124 Ohio App.3d 24, 30 (1st Dist.1997); Salzgaber v. First Christian Church, 65 Ohio App.3d 368, 373 (4th Dist.1989); Yaggie v. -6- Butler CA2018-03-050 Indiana-Kentucky Synod Evangelical Lutheran Church in Am., 860 F.Supp. 1194, 1199 (W.D.Ky.1994). {¶ 20} Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. 2018See, e.g. , Howard v. Covenant Apostolic Church , 124 Ohio App.3d 24 , 30, 705 N.E.2d 385 (1st Dist.1997) ; Salzgaber v. First Christian Church , 65 Ohio App.3d 368 , 373, 583 N.E.2d 1361 (4th Dist.1989) ; Yaggie v. Indiana-Kentucky Synod Evangelical Lutheran Church in Am. , 860 F.Supp. 1194 , 1199 (W.D.Ky.1994). {¶ 20} Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
Salzgaber v. First Christian Churchgreen2 sentences2018See, e.g. , Howard v. Covenant Apostolic Church , 124 Ohio App.3d 24 , 30, 705 N.E.2d 385 (1st Dist.1997) ; Salzgaber v. First Christian Church , 65 Ohio App.3d 368 , 373, 583 N.E.2d 1361 (4th Dist.1989) ; Yaggie v. Indiana-Kentucky Synod Evangelical Lutheran Church in Am. , 860 F.Supp. 1194 , 1199 (W.D.Ky.1994). {¶ 20} Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. 2018See, e.g. , Howard v. Covenant Apostolic Church , 124 Ohio App.3d 24 , 30, 705 N.E.2d 385 (1st Dist.1997) ; Salzgaber v. First Christian Church , 65 Ohio App.3d 368 , 373, 583 N.E.2d 1361 (4th Dist.1989) ; Yaggie v. Indiana-Kentucky Synod Evangelical Lutheran Church in Am. , 860 F.Supp. 1194 , 1199 (W.D.Ky.1994). {¶ 20} Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
Ogle v. Church of Godgreen1 sentence2017See Ogle at 376 (holding that court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over claims for breach of implied contract, tortious interference with business relationships, conspiracy, invasion of privacy, and defamation, as well as request for declaratory judgment because the claims "all implicate[d] the Church of God's internal disciplinary proceedings."). {¶ 19} Accordingly, we overrule appellant's first assignment of error. {¶ 20} In his second assignment of error, appellant argues that the common pleas court erred by denying his motion to proceed anonymously using a pseudonym. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ohio Dist. Council, Inc. of the Assemblies of God v. Speelman
green
2 sentences2024“It is of the essence of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism itself provides for.” Id. {¶27} “Ohio appellate courts have fashioned the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine into a two-part test to determine whether a court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a church dispute.” Harrison v. Bishop, 2015-Ohio-5308, ¶ 41 (6th Dist.), citing Bhatti v. Singh, 2002-Ohio-3348 , ¶ 25 (12th Dist. 2018"It is of the essence of these religious unions, and of their right to establish tribunals for the decision of questions arising among themselves, that those decisions should be binding in all cases of ecclesiastical cognizance, subject only to such appeals as the organism itself provides for." Id. {¶ 13} "Ohio appellate courts have fashioned the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine into a two-part test to determine whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction over a church dispute." Harrison at ¶ 41 , citing Bhatti v. Singh, 148 Ohio App.3d 386 , 2002-Ohio-3348 , ¶ 25 (12th Dist.). | 2 | 2018–2024 |
Watson v. Jones
green
2 sentences2022Our jumping-off point for this inquiry is 1871, where the United States Supreme Court, in Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 , 20 L.Ed. 4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 666 (1871), upheld the command of the First Amendment to abstain from interfering in disputes within religious organizations concerning religious practice, doctrine, or internal organization—principles reflected in the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. 2015Id. at 728 . {¶ 21} The Court revisited the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine in 1929 in Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 280 U.S. 1 , 50 S.Ct. 5 , 74 L.Ed. 131 (1929), a case in which the petitioner, Raul Rogerio Gonzalez, sought a judgment declaring that he was the lawful heir to a collative chaplaincy in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Manila. | 2 | 2015–2022 |
Jones v. Wolf
green
2 sentences2018However, the "neutral principles" exception to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine "applies only to cases involving disputes over church property." Hutchison v. Thomas , 789 F.2d 392 , 396 (6th Cir.1986), discussing Jones v. Wolf , 443 U.S. 595 , 99 S.Ct. 3020 , 61 L.Ed.2d 775 (1979). 2018However, the "neutral principles" exception to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine "applies only to cases involving disputes over church property." Hutchison v. Thomas , 789 F.2d 392 , 396 (6th Cir.1986), discussing Jones v. Wolf , 443 U.S. 595 , 99 S.Ct. 3020 , 61 L.Ed.2d 775 (1979). | 2 | 2015–2018 |
Presbyterian Church in US v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church
green
2 sentences2016And there are neutral principles of law, developed for use in all property disputes, which can be applied without "establishing" churches to which property is awarded. -6- Butler CA2015-02-031 Id. {¶ 21} "Ohio appellate courts have fashioned the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine into a two-part test to determine whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction over a church dispute." Harrison at ¶ 41 , citing Bhatti v. Singh, 148 Ohio App.3d 386 , 2002-Ohio-3348 , ¶ 25 (12th Dist.). 2015Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440 , 89 S.Ct. 601 , 21 L.Ed.2d 658 (1969), a case in which the Court examined whether a civil court could constitutionally award church property on the basis of its interpretation of certain aspects of church doctrine and the significance it assigns to that doctrine. | 2 | 2015–2016 |
Prey v. Franciscan Univ. of Steubenville
neutral
1 sentence2024Dated: October 3, 2024 –2– PER CURIAM. {¶1} On August 22, 2024, Appellant, Dale Prey, acting pro se, filed an application for reconsideration of our August 13, 2024 opinion and judgment entry in Prey v. Franciscan Univ. of Steubenville, 2024-Ohio-3087 (7th Dist.), in which we affirmed the dismissal of Appellant’s claims for defamation, tortious interference with contract, civil conspiracy, breach of contract, and fraud against his former employer, Appellee, Franciscan University of Steubenville (“University”) and five University students identified as “John Does #1-5.” We concluded the trial c | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Lytal v. Crawl for Cancer, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022No. 17AP-771, 2018-Ohio-2017, ¶ 7 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Turner v. Tri-County Baptist Church of Cincinnati
green
1 sentence2022No. CA2018-03-050, 2018-Ohio-4658, ¶ 16 , quoting Hutchison v. Thomas, 789 F.2d 392, 396 (6th Cir.1986) (noting "the 'neutral principles' exception to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine' applies only to cases involving disputes over church property' * * * [and the doctrine] 'has never been extended to religious controversies in the areas of church government, order and discipline, nor should it be' "). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
McKenzie v. Meijer, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018Id. {¶ 22} The majority opinion broadly defines the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine in a manner that oversteps the original intent of the doctrine. 2018Id. *608 {¶ 22} The majority opinion broadly defines the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine in a manner that oversteps the original intent of the doctrine. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Zhelezny v. Olesh
green
1 sentence2017No. 12AP-681, 2013-Ohio-4337, ¶ 36 , quoting the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Finney
green
1 sentence2017No. 13AP-198, 2013-Ohio-4884, ¶ 14 . {¶ 9} The common pleas court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over appellant's claims pursuant to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila
green
2 sentences2015Id. at 728 . {¶ 21} The Court revisited the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine in 1929 in Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 280 U.S. 1 , 50 S.Ct. 5 , 74 L.Ed. 131 (1929), a case in which the petitioner, Raul Rogerio Gonzalez, sought a judgment declaring that he was the lawful heir to a collative chaplaincy in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Manila. 2015Id. at 728 . {¶ 21} The Court revisited the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine in 1929 in Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 280 U.S. 1 , 50 S.Ct. 5 , 74 L.Ed. 131 (1929), a case in which the petitioner, Raul Rogerio Gonzalez, sought a judgment declaring that he was the lawful heir to a collative chaplaincy in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Manila. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Kreshik v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church of North America
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 191 . {¶ 28} The Court subsequently addressed the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine in Presbyterian Church in the United States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Serbian Orthodox Church Congregation of St. Demetrius v. Kelemen
green
2 sentences2015Demetrius of Akron v. Kelemen, 21 Ohio St.2d 154 , 256 N.E.2d 212 (1970). 2015Demetrius of Akron v. Kelemen, 21 Ohio St.2d 154 , 256 N.E.2d 212 (1970). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.