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.
7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2020–2022 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harris v. Matthewsgreen2 sentences2021Our Supreme Court has already determined that the ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine prohibits judicial review of whether a church’s internal governing body “breached [its] fiduciary duties by improperly using church funds.” Harris, 361 N.C. at 273 , 643 S.E.2d at 571 . 2021Our Supreme Court has already determined that the ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine prohibits judicial review of whether a church’s internal governing body “breached [its] fiduciary duties by improperly using church funds.” Harris, 361 N.C. at 273 , 643 S.E.2d at 571 . | 7 | 7 |
Doe v. Diocese Raleighgreen2 sentences2022This prohibition arises under both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, as “(1) by hearing religious disputes, a civil court could influence associational conduct, thereby chilling the free exercise of religious beliefs; and (2) by entering into a religious controversy and putting the enforcement power of the state behind a particular religious faction, a civil court risks establishing a religion.” Id. at 48 , 776 S.E.2d at 34 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 35 Accordingly, the ecclesiastical-entanglement doctrine potentially implicates the subject-matter jurisdictio 2022This prohibition arises under both the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, as “(1) by hearing religious disputes, a civil court could influence associational conduct, thereby chilling the free exercise of religious beliefs; and (2) by entering into a religious controversy and putting the enforcement power of the state behind a particular religious faction, a civil court risks establishing a religion.” Id. at 48 , 776 S.E.2d at 34 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 35 Accordingly, the ecclesiastical-entanglement doctrine potentially implicates the subject-matter jurisdictio | 2 | 4 |
Emory v. Jackson Chapel First Missionary Baptist Churchgreen2 sentences2020A. North Carolina Caselaw on Ecclesiastical Entanglement Doctrine In Atkins v. Walker, 284 N.C. 306 , 200 S.E.2d 641 (1973), which this Court described as the “seminal case” on the ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine in Emory v. Jackson Chapel First Missionary Baptist Church, 165 N.C. 2020A. North Carolina Caselaw on Ecclesiastical Entanglement Doctrine In Atkins v. Walker, 284 N.C. 306 , 200 S.E.2d 641 (1973), which this Court described as the “seminal case” on the ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine in Emory v. Jackson Chapel First Missionary Baptist Church, 165 N.C. | 2 | 4 |
Burgess Ex Rel. Burgess v. Gibbsgreen2 sentences2022It is a “universal principle as old as the law” that the proceedings of a court without subject-matter jurisdiction “are a nullity.” Burgess v. Gibbs, 262 N.C. 462, 465 , 137 S.E.2d 806, 808 (1964). 2022It is a “universal principle as old as the law” that the proceedings of a court without subject-matter jurisdiction “are a nullity.” Burgess v. Gibbs, 262 N.C. 462, 465 , 137 S.E.2d 806, 808 (1964). | 2 | 2 |
WESTERN CONF. OF ORIG. FREE WILL BAPTISTS v. Creechgreen2 sentences2020Under Doe, while a claim being “purely secular” is a sufficient condition to avoid the ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine, it is not a necessary one, and there may at times be a gray area of questions between those that are “purely secular” and “purely ecclesiastical.” The majority’s approach to defamation claims does not consider our precedent which provides that “the courts do have jurisdiction, as to civil, contract[,] and property rights which are involved in, or arise from, a church controversy.” Creech, 256 N.C. at 140 , 123 S.E.2d at 627 (emphasis added) (quoting Reid, 241 N.C. 201 , 2020Under Doe, while a claim being “purely secular” is a sufficient condition to avoid the ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine, it is not a necessary one, and there may at times be a gray area of questions between those that are “purely secular” and “purely ecclesiastical.” The majority’s approach to defamation claims does not consider our precedent which provides that “the courts do have jurisdiction, as to civil, contract[,] and property rights which are involved in, or arise from, a church controversy.” Creech, 256 N.C. at 140 , 123 S.E.2d at 627 (emphasis added) (quoting Reid, 241 N.C. 201 , | 2 | 2 |
Atkins v. Walkergreen2 sentences2020A. North Carolina Caselaw on Ecclesiastical Entanglement Doctrine In Atkins v. Walker, 284 N.C. 306 , 200 S.E.2d 641 (1973), which this Court described as the “seminal case” on the ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine in Emory v. Jackson Chapel First Missionary Baptist Church, 165 N.C. 2020A. North Carolina Caselaw on Ecclesiastical Entanglement Doctrine In Atkins v. Walker, 284 N.C. 306 , 200 S.E.2d 641 (1973), which this Court described as the “seminal case” on the ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine in Emory v. Jackson Chapel First Missionary Baptist Church, 165 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Presbyterian Church in US v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Churchgreen1 sentence2021(See Br. in Supp. 11–13.) This doctrine derives from the First Amendment, which “severely circumscribes the role that civil courts may play in resolving church property disputes.” Harris v. Matthews, 361 N.C. 265, 271 (2007) (quoting Presbyterian Church in the U.S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem’l Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 449 (1969)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Privette
green
2 sentences2020Summary In determining whether the ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine bars the courts of our state from considering an issue, the fundamental question is “whether resolution of the legal claim requires the court to interpret or weigh church doctrine.” Smith v. Privette, 128 N.C. 2020Summary In determining whether the ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine bars the courts of our state from considering an issue, the fundamental question is “whether resolution of the legal claim requires the court to interpret or weigh church doctrine.” Smith v. Privette, 128 N.C. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Smith v. Privette
green
2 sentences2020App. 490, 494 , 495 S.E.2d 395, 398 , appeal dismissed, 348 N.C. 284 , 501 S.E.2d 913 (1998) (citing Serbian E. 2020App. 490, 494 , 495 S.E.2d 395, 398 , appeal dismissed, 348 N.C. 284 , 501 S.E.2d 913 (1998) (citing Serbian E. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Renwick v. News & Observer Publishing Co.
green
2 sentences2020“Three classes of libel are recognized under North Carolina law.” Renwick, 310 N.C. at 316 , 312 S.E.2d at 408 . 2020“Three classes of libel are recognized under North Carolina law.” Renwick, 310 N.C. at 316 , 312 S.E.2d at 408 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v. Milivojevich
green
2 sentences2020If not, the First Amendment is not implicated and neutral principles of law are properly applied to adjudicate the claim.” Id. at 494 , 495 S.E.2d at 398 (citing Milivojevich, 426 U.S. at 710 , 49 L.Ed.2d at 163 ). 2020If not, the First Amendment is not implicated and neutral principles of law are properly applied to adjudicate the claim.” Id. at 494 , 495 S.E.2d at 398 (citing Milivojevich, 426 U.S. at 710 , 49 L.Ed.2d at 163 ). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Roanoke Properties Ltd. Part. v. Roanoke Harbour, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2020App. 490, 494 , 495 S.E.2d 395, 398 , appeal dismissed, 348 N.C. 284 , 501 S.E.2d 913 (1998) (citing Serbian E. 2020App. 490, 494 , 495 S.E.2d 395, 398 , appeal dismissed, 348 N.C. 284 , 501 S.E.2d 913 (1998) (citing Serbian E. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Reid v. Johnston
green
2 sentences2020Under Doe, while a claim being “purely secular” is a sufficient condition to avoid the ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine, it is not a necessary one, and there may at times be a gray area of questions between those that are “purely secular” and “purely ecclesiastical.” The majority’s approach to defamation claims does not consider our precedent which provides that “the courts do have jurisdiction, as to civil, contract[,] and property rights which are involved in, or arise from, a church controversy.” Creech, 256 N.C. at 140 , 123 S.E.2d at 627 (emphasis added) (quoting Reid, 241 N.C. 201 , 2020Under Doe, while a claim being “purely secular” is a sufficient condition to avoid the ecclesiastical entanglement doctrine, it is not a necessary one, and there may at times be a gray area of questions between those that are “purely secular” and “purely ecclesiastical.” The majority’s approach to defamation claims does not consider our precedent which provides that “the courts do have jurisdiction, as to civil, contract[,] and property rights which are involved in, or arise from, a church controversy.” Creech, 256 N.C. at 140 , 123 S.E.2d at 627 (emphasis added) (quoting Reid, 241 N.C. 201 , | 2 | 2020–2020 |
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.