basis of religious doctrine in Illinois

10 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2011 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Illinois 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 (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Fairview Haven v. Department of Revenuegreen illappct · 1987 · cited in 4 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2008–2011 2 sentences 2011See Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 381 Ill.App.3d 679, 696 , 319 Ill.Dec. 283 , 885 N.E.2d 554, 569 (2008) (courts are precluded from resolving disputes on the basis of religious doctrine); Fairview Haven v. Department of Revenue, 153 Ill.App.3d 763, 773 , 106 Ill. 489 Dec. 634, 506 N.E.2d 341, 348 (1987) (first amendment precludes judicial involvement in the internal autonomy of religious organizations). 2011See Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 381 Ill.App.3d 679, 696 , 319 Ill.Dec. 283 , 885 N.E.2d 554, 569 (2008) (courts are precluded from resolving disputes on the basis of religious doctrine); Fairview Haven v. Department of Revenue, 153 Ill.App.3d 763, 773 , 106 Ill. 489 Dec. 634, 506 N.E.2d 341, 348 (1987) (first amendment precludes judicial involvement in the internal autonomy of religious organizations).	4	4
Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Department of Revenuegreen illappct · 2008 · cited in 2 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011 2 sentences 2011See Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 381 Ill.App.3d 679, 696 , 319 Ill.Dec. 283 , 885 N.E.2d 554, 569 (2008) (courts are precluded from resolving disputes on the basis of religious doctrine); Fairview Haven v. Department of Revenue, 153 Ill.App.3d 763, 773 , 106 Ill. 489 Dec. 634, 506 N.E.2d 341, 348 (1987) (first amendment precludes judicial involvement in the internal autonomy of religious organizations). 2011See Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 381 Ill.App.3d 679, 696 , 319 Ill.Dec. 283 , 885 N.E.2d 554, 569 (2008) (courts are precluded from resolving disputes on the basis of religious doctrine); Fairview Haven v. Department of Revenue, 153 Ill.App.3d 763, 773 , 106 Ill. 489 Dec. 634, 506 N.E.2d 341, 348 (1987) (first amendment precludes judicial involvement in the internal autonomy of religious organizations).	2	2
Md. & Va. Churches v. Sharpsburg Ch.green scotus · 1970 · cited in 1 Illinois opinions naming this issue, 1987–1987 1 sentence 1987Indeed, `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.' Maryland & Va. Churches, 396 U.S., at 368 (Brennan, J., concurring) (emphasis in original)." ( Jones v. Wolf (1979), 443 U.S. 595, 602 , 61 L.Ed.2d 775, 784 , 99 S.Ct. 3020, 3025 .) Thus, the Jones court recognized that in matters of church doctrine or polity, civil courts must utilize the "strict-deference" approach.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (6)

Case	Cited	Years
Jones v. Wolf green scotus · 1979 2 sentences 1987This question was addressed as follows by the United States Supreme Court in Jones v. Wolf (1979), 443 U.S. 595 , 61 L.Ed.2d 775 , 99 S.Ct. 3020 : "[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 organization. [Citations.] Subject to these limitations, however, the First Amendment does not dictate that a State 1987Ed. 2d 775 , 99 S. Ct. 3020 : “[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 organization. [Citations.] Subject to these limitations, however, the First Amendment does not dictate that a State must follow a particular method of resolving church property disputes.	5	1979–1995
Lowe v. First Presbyterian Church green ill · 1974 2 sentences 1987App. 3d 151 , 454 N.E.2d 1083 ) and must respect the internal autonomy of religious organizations (Lowe v. First Presbyterian Church (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 404 , 308 N.E.2d 801 ). 1987App. 3d 151 , 454 N.E.2d 1083 ) and must respect the internal autonomy of religious organizations (Lowe v. First Presbyterian Church (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 404 , 308 N.E.2d 801 ).	1	1987–1987
Knobloch v. PEORIA & PEKIN UNION RY CO. neutral illappct · 1983 2 sentences 1987App. 3d 151 , 454 N.E.2d 1083 ) and must respect the internal autonomy of religious organizations (Lowe v. First Presbyterian Church (1974), 56 Ill. 2d 404 , 308 N.E.2d 801 ). 1987App.3d 151 , 454 N.E.2d 1083 ) and must respect the internal autonomy *773 of religious organizations ( Lowe v. First Presbyterian Church (1974), 56 Ill.2d 404 , 308 N.E.2d 801 ).	1	1987–1987
Grace Ev. Luth. Ch., River Forest v. Luth. Ch.-Mo. Synod neutral illappct · 1983 2 sentences 1987Therefore, governmental bodies are precluded from resolving disputes on the basis of religious doctrine (Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (1983), 118 Ill. 1987Therefore, governmental bodies are precluded from resolving disputes on the basis of religious doctrine ( Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (1983), 118 Ill.	1	1987–1987
Presbyterian Church in US v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church green scotus · 1969 2 sentences 1983Acting on these motions and on intervenors' motion that the court adopt the findings of the district commission of adjudication, the trial court issued its order, holding that the option agreement was valid and legally binding on the parties but the provisions of paragraph C could not be enforced by a civil court because of first amendment restrictions. 1-3 Although the State has a legitimate interest in providing a forum for the peaceful resolution of church property disputes, the civil court's role is severely circumscribed by the first amendment and accordingly the courts may not resolve 1983Acting on these motions and on intervenors' motion that the court adopt the findings of the district commission of adjudication, the trial court issued its order, holding that the option agreement was valid and legally binding on the parties but the provisions of paragraph C could not be enforced by a civil court because of first amendment restrictions. 1-3 Although the State has a legitimate interest in providing a forum for the peaceful resolution of church property disputes, the civil court's role is severely circumscribed by the first amendment and accordingly the courts may not resolve	1	1983–1983
Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v. Milivojevich green scotus · 1976 2 sentences 1983Acting on these motions and on intervenors' motion that the court adopt the findings of the district commission of adjudication, the trial court issued its order, holding that the option agreement was valid and legally binding on the parties but the provisions of paragraph C could not be enforced by a civil court because of first amendment restrictions. 1-3 Although the State has a legitimate interest in providing a forum for the peaceful resolution of church property disputes, the civil court's role is severely circumscribed by the first amendment and accordingly the courts may not resolve 1983Acting on these motions and on intervenors' motion that the court adopt the findings of the district commission of adjudication, the trial court issued its order, holding that the option agreement was valid and legally binding on the parties but the provisions of paragraph C could not be enforced by a civil court because of first amendment restrictions. 1-3 Although the State has a legitimate interest in providing a forum for the peaceful resolution of church property disputes, the civil court's role is severely circumscribed by the first amendment and accordingly the courts may not resolve	1	1983–1983

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IL § 35 ILCS 200/15-40 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

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