Anyone knowing anything about these cases?

by Kent 5 Replies latest jw friends

  • Kent
    Kent

    Jehovah's Witnesses:

    Lakewood, Ohio Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. v. City of Lakewood, 699 F.2d 303 (6th Cir. 1983) (D) (L)

    Galfas v. City of Atlanta, 193 F.2d 931 (5th Cir. 1952) (D) (L)

    Jehovah's Witnesses Assembly Halls v. Jersey City, 597 F. Supp 972 (D.N.J. 1984) (G) (L)

    Matthews v. Board of Supervisors, 21 Cal Rptr. 914 (Dist. Ct. App. 1962) (D) (L)

    Garden Grove Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Garden Grove, 1 Cal. Rptr. 65 (Dist. Ct. App. 1959) (D) (L)

    Redwood City Co. of Jehovah's Witnesses v. City of Menlo Park, 335 P.2d 195 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1959) (G) (L)

    Minney v. City of Azusa, 330 P.2d 255 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1958) (D) (L)

    State ex rel. Tampa Co. of Jehovah's Witnesses v. City of Tampa, 48 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1950) (G) (L)

    Rogers v. Mayor of Atlanta, 137 S.E.2d 668, 672 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964) (G) (L)

    Columbus Park Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. v. Board of Appeals, 182 N.E.2d 722

    (Ill. 1962) (G) (L)

    Board of Zoning Appeals v. Decatur Co. Jehovah's Witnesses, 117 N.E.2d 115 (Ind. 1954) (D) (A)

    Minnetonka Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. v. Svee, 226 N.W.2d 306 (Minn. 1975) (G) (L)

    Allendale Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Grosman, 152 A.2d 569 (N.J. 1959) (D) (L)

    Jehovah's Witnesses Assembly Hall of S. New Jersey v. Woolwich Township, 532 A.2d 276 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1987) (G) (L)

    State ex rel. Wiegel v. Randall, 116 N.E.2d 300 (Ohio 1953) (G) (L)

    Libis v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 292 N.E.2d 642 (Ohio Ct. App. 1972) (G) (L)

    Milwaukie Co. of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Mullen, 330 P.2d 5 (Or. 1958) (D) (L)

    Appeal of Trustees of the Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, 130 A.2d 240 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1957) (D) (L)

    Congregation Comm. N. Fort Worth Congregation, Jehovah's Witnesses v. City Council, 287 S.W.2d 700 (Tex. Civ. App. Ct. 1956) (G) (L)

    State ex rel. Wenatchee Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. City of Wenatchee, 312 P.2d 195 (Wash. 1957) (G) (L)

    Yakki Da

    Kent

    I need more BOE letters, KMs and other material. Those who can send it to me - please do! The new section will be interesting!!

    Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
    http://watchtower.observer.org

  • wannahelp
    wannahelp

    Nope,

    But it is interesting to find all these "challenges" to the secular authoritites that they are supposed to be in subjection too..

    I guess Jehovah had stood up and told them that whatever the secular authoritites were doing in these instances was obviously against his will..

  • RR
    RR
    Jehovah's Witnesses Assembly Halls v. Jersey City, 597 F. Supp 972 (D.N.J. 1984) (G) (L)

    Yep. In fact I use to work for the old geezer who was the attorney for this case.

    This was concerning the purchase of the Stanley Theater, which theJW purchased, but then Jersey City residence were up in arms of the JW's converting it into a church.

    Well, you know the outcome, the Society won, the Stanley theater was restored to it's original beauty and it became an assemble hall, among other things.

    ____________________________
    I Still Believe ....

  • roybatty
    roybatty

    Yeah,

    I'm willing to bet that almost all of these regard zoning cases for new KH or assembly halls.
    I'm not sure how it works where you're at kent but here the local congregation will try and sell a piece of land but will want to re-zone it from, let's say, a church to business or light industry. This way it's easier to sell. The local zoning board will sometimes deny this request and the seller can sue and force re-zoning. Kind of works the same way when buying. Just my guess though.

  • Room 215
    Room 215

    Kent....
    And how about this biggie?
    ``Washington, Oct. 15 -- The U.S. Supreme Court will use an Ohio case involving the Jehovah's Witnesses to decide whether local governments can require door-to-door canvassers toobtain permits that show their names.
    The religious group, known for knocking on doors and passing
    out leaflets to spread the Christian gospel, contended the Village
    of Stratton is infringing the U.S. constitutional right to
    anonymously speak and distribute pamphlets.
    A federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the law on a 2-1
    vote, saying Jehovah's Witnesses who approach others have already
    sacrificed their anonymity.
    ``Individuals going door-to-door to engage in political
    speech are not anonymous by virtue of the fact that they reveal a
    portion of their identities -- their physical identities -- to the
    residents they canvass,'' the appeals court wrote.
    The Jehovah's Witnesses ruling conflicts with earlier Supreme
    Court decisions and removes the constitutional ``shield of
    anonymity'' from people who want to speak out on matters of public
    involved in the communication of political thoughts.''
    The ordinance, which has been in effect in its current form
    since 1998, requires those seeking to go house-to-house to file a
    registration form giving their names and explaining why they are
    canvassing and which houses they plan to visit. The law also says
    canvassers must show their permits to residents upon request.
    The ordinance imposes no fee for a permit and says the mayor
    must grant every application except those filed by people who have
    engaged in specified misconduct.
    Stratton, a 278-resident town on the eastern edge of Ohio,
    urged the high court not to take up the appeal. The town said
    there is ``no constitutional right to anonymity.''
    The justices, who will hear arguments early next year, opted
    not to consider a second issue raised by the Jehovah's Witnesses,
    formally known as the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New
    York.
    The group also contends that the ordinance violates speech
    and religion rights because it is broader than necessary to meet
    the town's announced goal of fighting door-to-door scam artists.
    The case is Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York v.
    Village of Stratton, 00-1737.

  • Kent
    Kent

    I've read a lot about the Stratton case, yes. Some company owned town, the people, the police - even god himself - and they didn't want no JWs :))

    I believe it's interesting these days to dig into the political world of the Watchtower. There is MUCH interesting stuff waiting to be dug up!

    Yakki Da

    Kent

    I need more BOE letters, KMs and other material. Those who can send it to me - please do! The new section will be interesting!!

    Daily News On The Watchtower and the Jehovah's Witnesses:
    http://watchtower.observer.org

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit