Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 California opinions name it 2 courts 1933–2025 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Md. & Va. Churches v. Sharpsburg Ch.green2 sentences2007Although there is an express reversionary clause in favor of Central Coast in the First Baptist constitution and bylaws, “[o]nly express conditions that may be effected without consideration of doctrine are civilly enforceable.” (Eldership, supra, 396 U.S. at p. 369, fn. 2 .) The reversionary clause here operates to transfer property only upon one of two conditions — either First Baptist dissolves and winds up its affairs, or First Baptist ceases to be a Southern Baptist church. 2007For example, provisions in deeds or in a denomination’s constitution for the reversion of local church property to the general church, if conditioned upon a finding of departure from doctrine, could not be civilly enforced.” (Eldership, supra, 396 U.S. at p. 370 (conc. opn. of Brennan, J.).) Applying these rules to the case at hand, it becomes clear that the determination whether First Baptist “cease[d] to be a Southern Baptist Church,” so as to trigger the reversionary clause in its constitution, to some extent required the court to involve itself in questions of religious doctrine, polity an | 2 | 2 |
Pringle v. Wilsongreen1 sentence1957(Moore v. Wood, 26 Cal.2d 621, 630 [ 160 P.2d 772 ] ; Pringle v. Wilson, 156 Cal. 313, 318 [104P. 316, 24 L.RA.N.S. 1090].) It is apparent that the reversionary clause in paragraph eight purports to pass to the owner greater rights than those which would pass if “Property” were restricted to the literary composition alone. | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Woodgreen2 sentences1957(Moore v. Wood, 26 Cal.2d 621, 630 [ 160 P.2d 772 ] ; Pringle v. Wilson, 156 Cal. 313, 318 [104P. 316, 24 L.RA.N.S. 1090].) It is apparent that the reversionary clause in paragraph eight purports to pass to the owner greater rights than those which would pass if “Property” were restricted to the literary composition alone. 1957(Moore v. Wood, 26 Cal.2d 621, 630 [ 160 P.2d 772 ] ; Pringle v. Wilson, 156 Cal. 313, 318 [104P. 316, 24 L.RA.N.S. 1090].) It is apparent that the reversionary clause in paragraph eight purports to pass to the owner greater rights than those which would pass if “Property” were restricted to the literary composition alone. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Central Coast Baptist Ass'n v. First Baptist Church of Las Lomas
green
2 sentences2025(Id. at p. 485.) Compare Central Coast Baptist, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th 822 , where the plaintiff, a voluntary association of Southern Baptist churches, alleged that an attempted takeover of a local church by a nondenominational church triggered a reversionary clause in the local church’s constitution, which provided that its assets would pass to the plaintiff if it should ‘“cease to be a Southern Baptist Church.’” (Id. at p. 827.) The court held the First 26 Amendment barred the resolution of the claim because the determination of whether the local church ‘“cease[d] to be a Southern Baptist Ch 2025(Id. at p. 485.) Compare Central Coast Baptist, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th 822 , where the plaintiff, a voluntary association of Southern Baptist churches, alleged that an attempted takeover of a local church by a nondenominational church triggered a reversionary clause in the local church’s constitution, which provided that its assets would pass to the plaintiff if it should ‘“cease to be a Southern Baptist Church.’” (Id. at p. 827.) The court held the First 26 Amendment barred the resolution of the claim because the determination of whether the local church ‘“cease[d] to be a Southern Baptist Ch | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Bomar v. Mount Olive Missionary Baptist Church
green
2 sentences2007Olive Missionary Baptist Church (1928) 92 Cal.App. 618 [ 268 P. 665 ] [transfer of church property without authorization of properly held membership meeting is voidable].) Central Coast contends that the various acts and decisions of First Baptist in violation of its own constitution and bylaws were not only of no effect, but also amounted to a “constructive dissolution” of the organization, sufficient to trigger the reversionary clause in article VII, section 3, of the First Baptist constitution. 2007Olive Missionary Baptist Church (1928) 92 Cal.App. 618 [ 268 P. 665 ] [transfer of church property without authorization of properly held membership meeting is voidable].) Central Coast contends that the various acts and decisions of First Baptist in violation of its own constitution and bylaws were not only of no effect, but also amounted to a “constructive dissolution” of the organization, sufficient to trigger the reversionary clause in article VII, section 3, of the First Baptist constitution. | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Presbyterian Church in US v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church
green
2 sentences2007For instance, it appears the court was asked to decide, on the basis of conflicting evidence, what doctrines or practices characterize a Southern Baptist church as such, and then to evaluate the actions taken by First Baptist and New Life in order to determine whether First Baptist had substantially departed from such doctrine, and if so whether this departure was so significant that First Baptist could no longer be considered "to be a Southern Baptist Church." In our view, the court could not conduct this inquiry without delving into "matters at the very core of a religion—the interpretation, 2007For instance, it appears the court was asked to decide, on the basis of conflicting evidence, what doctrines or practices characterize a Southern Baptist church as such, and then to evaluate the actions taken by First Baptist and New Life in order to determine whether First Baptist had substantially departed from such doctrine, and if so whether this departure was so significant that First Baptist could no longer be considered “to be a Southern Baptist Church.” In our view, the court could not conduct this inquiry without delving into “matters at the very core of a religion — the interpretatio | 2 | 2007–2007 |
Tamalpais Land & Water Co. v. Northwestern Pacific Railroad
green
1 sentence2022Co. (1946) 73 Cal.App.2d 917, 929 .) Even where a deed contains language that is normally used to grant a fee, and contains a reversionary clause, courts will construe the instrument as granting an easement if doing so would be consistent with the purpose of the conveyance. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Maryland & Virginia Eldership of the Churches of God v. Church of God at Sharpsburg, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007Although there is an express reversionary clause in favor of Central Coast in the First Baptist constitution and bylaws, "[o]nly express conditions that may be effected without consideration of doctrine are civilly enforceable." ( Eldership, supra, 396 U.S. at p. 369, fn. 2 , 90 S.Ct. 499 .) The reversionary clause here operates to transfer property only upon one of two conditions—either First Baptist dissolves and winds up its affairs, or First Baptist ceases to be a Southern Baptist church. 2007Although there is an express reversionary clause in favor of Central Coast in the First Baptist constitution and bylaws, "[o]nly express conditions that may be effected without consideration of doctrine are civilly enforceable." ( Eldership, supra, 396 U.S. at p. 369, fn. 2 , 90 S.Ct. 499 .) The reversionary clause here operates to transfer property only upon one of two conditions—either First Baptist dissolves and winds up its affairs, or First Baptist ceases to be a Southern Baptist church. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Kingsbury v. Ross
green
2 sentences1951(Kingsbury v. Ross, 217 Cal. 484 [ 19 P.2d 784 ]; Chever v. Ching Hong Poy, 82 Cal. 68 [ 22 P. 1081 ]; Martinovich v. Marsicano, 137 Cal. 354 [ 70 P. 459 ]; Cooley v. Miller & Lux, 156 Cal. 510 [ 105 P. 981 ].) Judgment affirmed. 1951(Kingsbury v. Ross, 217 Cal. 484 [ 19 P.2d 784 ]; Chever v. Ching Hong Poy, 82 Cal. 68 [ 22 P. 1081 ]; Martinovich v. Marsicano, 137 Cal. 354 [ 70 P. 459 ]; Cooley v. Miller & Lux, 156 Cal. 510 [ 105 P. 981 ].) Judgment affirmed. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Cooley v. Miller & Lux
green
2 sentences1951(Kingsbury v. Ross, 217 Cal. 484 [ 19 P.2d 784 ]; Chever v. Ching Hong Poy, 82 Cal. 68 [ 22 P. 1081 ]; Martinovich v. Marsicano, 137 Cal. 354 [ 70 P. 459 ]; Cooley v. Miller & Lux, 156 Cal. 510 [ 105 P. 981 ].) Judgment affirmed. 1951(Kingsbury v. Ross, 217 Cal. 484 [ 19 P.2d 784 ]; Chever v. Ching Hong Poy, 82 Cal. 68 [ 22 P. 1081 ]; Martinovich v. Marsicano, 137 Cal. 354 [ 70 P. 459 ]; Cooley v. Miller & Lux, 156 Cal. 510 [ 105 P. 981 ].) Judgment affirmed. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Martinovich v. Marsicano
green
2 sentences1951(Kingsbury v. Ross, 217 Cal. 484 [ 19 P.2d 784 ]; Chever v. Ching Hong Poy, 82 Cal. 68 [ 22 P. 1081 ]; Martinovich v. Marsicano, 137 Cal. 354 [ 70 P. 459 ]; Cooley v. Miller & Lux, 156 Cal. 510 [ 105 P. 981 ].) Judgment affirmed. 1951(Kingsbury v. Ross, 217 Cal. 484 [ 19 P.2d 784 ]; Chever v. Ching Hong Poy, 82 Cal. 68 [ 22 P. 1081 ]; Martinovich v. Marsicano, 137 Cal. 354 [ 70 P. 459 ]; Cooley v. Miller & Lux, 156 Cal. 510 [ 105 P. 981 ].) Judgment affirmed. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Chever v. Ching Hong Poy
green
2 sentences1951(Kingsbury v. Ross, 217 Cal. 484 [ 19 P.2d 784 ]; Chever v. Ching Hong Poy, 82 Cal. 68 [ 22 P. 1081 ]; Martinovich v. Marsicano, 137 Cal. 354 [ 70 P. 459 ]; Cooley v. Miller & Lux, 156 Cal. 510 [ 105 P. 981 ].) Judgment affirmed. 1951(Kingsbury v. Ross, 217 Cal. 484 [ 19 P.2d 784 ]; Chever v. Ching Hong Poy, 82 Cal. 68 [ 22 P. 1081 ]; Martinovich v. Marsicano, 137 Cal. 354 [ 70 P. 459 ]; Cooley v. Miller & Lux, 156 Cal. 510 [ 105 P. 981 ].) Judgment affirmed. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
Hall v. Fairchild-Gilmore-Wilton Co.
green
2 sentences1933Appellant cites and relies upon Hall v. Fairchild-Gilmore-Wilton Co., 66 Cal. App. 615 [ 227 Pac. 649 ], but the facts in that case readily distinguish it from the facts before us in the present case. 1933Appellant cites and relies upon Hall v. Fairchild-Gilmore-Wilton Co., 66 Cal. App. 615 [ 227 Pac. 649 ], but the facts in that case readily distinguish it from the facts before us in the present case. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
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.