ecclesiastical abstention doctrine in Kentucky

2017Trials 379, § 7 (2014). 1 426 S.W.3d 597, 619 (Ky. 2014) (internal citations omitted). 4 controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of the church to the standard of morals . required of them" fall within the scope of the ecclesiastical- abstention doctrine.a · Und~r the .ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine, the question at the heart of whether Cropper's contract claim should be allowed is "whether [Cropper's] breach of contract claim can be decided without wading into doctrinal waters. "9 Simply stated, deciding Cropper's breach of contract claim

2017In Kirby, this court held the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine not to apply to a breach-of-contract claim raised by a tenured professor, Kirby, who taught Christian social ethics at the Lexington Theological Sem.inary.10 The Seminary a 449 S.W.3d at 739 . 9 Id. at 620. 10 Kirby v. Le'xington Theological Seminary, 426 S.W.3d 597, 601 (Ky. 2~14). 5 terminated Kirby's position because of a "tsunami of economic disasters" causing the Seminary's budget to shri~k dramatically.11 In this case, Cropper ·was the lay administrator-the principal-of Saint Augustine School,. which . terminated her positi

2023ANALYSIS Appellant argues that the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss because the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not apply and the controversy “can be resolved by the application of neutral principles of secular law.” Id. at 739 (footnote and citation omitted).

2018So, . . . we draw an analogy to perhaps the most commonly encountered defense of confession and avoidance, qualified governmental immunity, and aver that the ecclesiastical-abstention defense is to be applied in a manner that is procedurally consistent with the application of qualified governmental immunity. 449 S.W.3d 727, 737 (Ky. 2014).

2018But when the case merely involves a church, or even a minister, but does not require the 7 of whether immunity applies in a given situation involves the determination of the material facts; however, the question of immunity is one of law and is to be determined by the trial court.” Norton Hosps., Inc. v. Peyton, 381 S.W.3d 286, 290 (Ky. 2012).

2015Orthodox Diocese for U.S. of America and Canada v. Milivojevich, 41 426 U.S. 696, 709 (1976). 42 Kirby 426 S.W.3d at 619. 43 Watson, 80 U.S. at 733 . 44 "We reiterate that the intent of ecclesiastical abstention is not to render 'civil and property rights . . . unenforceable in the civil court simply because the parties involved might be the church and members, officers, or the ministry of the church."' Kant v. Lexington Theological Seminary, 426 S.W.3d 587, 596 (Ky. 2014) (quoting Jenkins v. Trinity Evangelical.

2015Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in N. Am., 344 U.S. 94, 116 (1952). 49 Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, 680 (1871). 19 inquiry by civil courts into religious law and polity, the First and Fourteenth Amendments mandate that civil courts shall" not act. 41 "At bottom, the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine is primarily interested in preventing any chilling effect on church practices as a result of government intrusion in the form of secular courts." 42 But churches are not the only benefactors of ecclesiastical abstention.

2015Orthodox Diocese for U.S. of America and Canada v. Milivojevich, 41 426 U.S. 696, 709 (1976). 42 Kirby 426 S.W.3d at 619. 43 Watson, 80 U.S. at 733 . 44 "We reiterate that the intent of ecclesiastical abstention is not to render 'civil and property rights . . . unenforceable in the civil court simply because the parties involved might be the church and members, officers, or the ministry of the church."' Kant v. Lexington Theological Seminary, 426 S.W.3d 587, 596 (Ky. 2014) (quoting Jenkins v. Trinity Evangelical.

2015Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in N. Am., 344 U.S. 94, 116 (1952). 49 Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, 680 (1871). 19 inquiry by civil courts into religious law and polity, the First and Fourteenth Amendments mandate that civil courts shall" not act. 41 "At bottom, the ecclesiastical-abstention doctrine is primarily interested in preventing any chilling effect on church practices as a result of government intrusion in the form of secular courts." 42 But churches are not the only benefactors of ecclesiastical abstention.

2015Bd. of Educ. v. Prater, 292 S.W.3d 883, 886 (Ky. 2009); see also Kirby, 426 S.W.3d at 609 n.45 ("Interlocutory appellate review is available—even in the absence of a final judgment- -becausethe denial of immunity is a 'substantial claim[] of right which would be rendered moot by litigation and thus [is] not subject to meaningful review in the ordinary course following a final judgment.' Id.

2015Orthodox Diocese for U.S. of America and Canada v. Milivojevich, 41 426 U.S. 696, 709 (1976). 42 Kirby 426 S.W.3d at 619. 43 Watson, 80 U.S. at 733 . 44 "We reiterate that the intent of ecclesiastical abstention is not to render 'civil and property rights . . . unenforceable in the civil court simply because the parties involved might be the church and members, officers, or the ministry of the church."' Kant v. Lexington Theological Seminary, 426 S.W.3d 587, 596 (Ky. 2014) (quoting Jenkins v. Trinity Evangelical.