9 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington 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 |
|---|---|---|
cluster 750720green2 sentences2026Likewise, constitutional religious protections do “not provide churches with absolute immunity to engage in tortious conduct” “[s]o long as liability is predicated on secular conduct and does not involve the interpretation of church doctrine or religious beliefs.” C.J.C. v. Corp. of Catholic Bishop, 138 Wn.2d 699, 728 , 985 P.2d 262 (1999) (“[T]he constitutional guarantee of religious freedom cannot be construed to protect secular beliefs and behavior, even when they comprise part of an otherwise religious relationship between a minister and a member of his or her congregation.”) (citing Sande 2012So long as liability is predicated on secular conduct and does not involve the interpretation of church doctrine or religious beliefs, it does not offend constitutional principles.” C.J.C., 138 Wn.2d at 728 (quoting Sanders v. Casa View Baptist Church, 134 F.3d 331, 336 (5th Cir. 1998)); accord Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 , 110 S. Ct. 1595 , 108 L. | 4 | 4 |
C.J.C. v. Corporation of Catholic Bishopgreen2 sentences2026Likewise, constitutional religious protections do “not provide churches with absolute immunity to engage in tortious conduct” “[s]o long as liability is predicated on secular conduct and does not involve the interpretation of church doctrine or religious beliefs.” C.J.C. v. Corp. of Catholic Bishop, 138 Wn.2d 699, 728 , 985 P.2d 262 (1999) (“[T]he constitutional guarantee of religious freedom cannot be construed to protect secular beliefs and behavior, even when they comprise part of an otherwise religious relationship between a minister and a member of his or her congregation.”) (citing Sande 2019So long as liability is predicated on secular conduct and does not involve the interpretation of church doctrine or religious beliefs, it does not offend constitutional principles." C.J.C. v. Corp. of Catholic Bishop of Yakima, 138 Wn.2d 699, 728 , 985 P.2d 262 (1999) 4 Indeed, this very Church was previously a party in a lawsuit in which members challenged the legality of board elections. | 2 | 7 |
CJC v. Corporation of Catholic Bishopgreen2 sentences2026Likewise, constitutional religious protections do “not provide churches with absolute immunity to engage in tortious conduct” “[s]o long as liability is predicated on secular conduct and does not involve the interpretation of church doctrine or religious beliefs.” C.J.C. v. Corp. of Catholic Bishop, 138 Wn.2d 699, 728 , 985 P.2d 262 (1999) (“[T]he constitutional guarantee of religious freedom cannot be construed to protect secular beliefs and behavior, even when they comprise part of an otherwise religious relationship between a minister and a member of his or her congregation.”) (citing Sande 2019So long as liability is predicated on secular conduct and does not involve the interpretation of church doctrine or religious beliefs, it does not offend constitutional principles." C.J.C. v. Corp. of Catholic Bishop of Yakima, 138 Wn.2d 699, 728 , 985 P.2d 262 (1999) 4 Indeed, this very Church was previously a party in a lawsuit in which members challenged the legality of board elections. | 1 | 4 |
N.K. v. Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saintsgreen2 sentences2026Likewise, constitutional religious protections do “not provide churches with absolute immunity to engage in tortious conduct” “[s]o long as liability is predicated on secular conduct and does not involve the interpretation of church doctrine or religious beliefs.” C.J.C. v. Corp. of Catholic Bishop, 138 Wn.2d 699, 728 , 985 P.2d 262 (1999) (“[T]he constitutional guarantee of religious freedom cannot be construed to protect secular beliefs and behavior, even when they comprise part of an otherwise religious relationship between a minister and a member of his or her congregation.”) (citing Sande 2026App. 517, 543-44 , 307 P.3d 730 (2013) (“To the extent the church may be arguing that nonprivileged information in the disciplinary files is shielded by the First Amendment, we disagree.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Parkgreen1 sentence2019See Kidisti Sellassie Orthodox Tewehado Eritrean Church v. Medin noted at 118 Wn. | 1 | 1 |
Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smithred2 sentences2012So long as liability is predicated on secular conduct and does not involve the interpretation of church doctrine or religious beliefs, it does not offend constitutional principles.” C.J.C., 138 Wn.2d at 728 (quoting Sanders v. Casa View Baptist Church, 134 F.3d 331, 336 (5th Cir. 1998)); accord Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 , 110 S. Ct. 1595 , 108 L. 2012So long as liability is predicated on secular conduct and does not involve the interpretation of church doctrine or religious beliefs, it does not offend constitutional principles.” C.J.C., 138 Wn.2d at 728 (quoting Sanders v. Casa View Baptist Church, 134 F.3d 331, 336 (5th Cir. 1998)); accord Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 , 110 S. Ct. 1595 , 108 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.
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.