this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
Again you cannot sue in civil court without asking for money. that is the way that civil courts are able to bring relief.
in Malloy vs Watchtower just this month the 6th circuit court of appeals wrote this.
To avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
TD this discussion is about the legal environment which is what I am speaking about. legally the courts.
Poopie- Civil suits require that you sue for money. a civil court is there to provide relief to make you whole. At least in the US you have to sue for money otherwise it would be dismissed for failing to state a claim.
Stephanie: Civil rights are only protected when the government is attempting to curtail a civil right. In the case that you referenced the NAACP sued the State of Alabama because the state was attempting to stop their association, not a private organization. The state was doing it with their state or governmental powers.
There are plenty of cases also that speaks to your assertion that if only the courts can see if someone is being Disfellowshipped because they were associating with a disfellowshipped person. In fact, that is what the claim was in the Canadian case was involved. There are also cases in the US where one church disfellowshipped another religious congregation as a whole and forbade any of their members from speaking with the members of the other church. This lead to one member attempting suicide because he was in love with a girl from the other church. The parents attempted to sue but the Alaskan supreme court ruled that it is not their place to interfere with religious law. In the Scientology case the California supreme court ruled that a church could advise it's members to stop speaking to people under penalty of discipline.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
European law may have more on civil rights but also reasons and valuation on civil suits is reduced. For example, the reason the Australian redress scheme max is at 150k or so is because that is about the max one can get in a civil trial.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
Cassell v Christin Science Board of Directors
Appeals Court of Massachusetts 81Mass.App.Ct 1114 (Unplublisehd Opinion)
No synopsis available at this time
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
Hadnot v Shaw
Supreme Court of Oklahoma 826 P.2d 978
Excommunicated members of church brought tort action against church and lay leaders. The District Court, Grady County, James R. Winchester), J., granted summary judgment for defendants, and appeal was taken. The Supreme Court, Opala), C.J., held that: (1) summary judgment was not prematurely rendered, and (2) parishioners were entitled to opportunity to discover whether conduct outside of church's First Amendment privilege occurred.
Davis v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Supreme Court of Montana 258Mont. 286
Church member sued church for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and negligent misrepresentation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The District Court, Eleventh Judicial District, Flathead County, Leif B. Erickson), J., dismissed all claims except that for breach of fiduciary duty, and both parties appealed. The Supreme Court, Weber), J., held that: (1) court properly dismissed claims; (2) fact issues precluded summary judgment on fiduciary duty claim; (3) evidence of religious sanctions imposed was inadmissible; (4) member could recover for pain and suffering; and (5) doctrine of charitable immunity did not exist in Montana.
You may want to make special note of this one as the suit was for intentional infliction of emotional distress
Thomas v Fuerst
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Fifth Division 345Ill.App.3d 929
Background: Plaintiff, a member of an orthodox Jewish community, brought claims of libel, violation of due process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against members of rabbinic court in connection with plaintiff's excommunication from community. The Circuit Court, Cook County, Lynn M. Egan), J., granted motion to dismiss. Plaintiff appealed.
Holdings: The Appellate Court, Sheila M. O'Brien), J., held that:
1 libel claims were barred by First Amendment because truth or falsity of statements at issue could not be determined without extensive inquiry into religious law and polity;
2 excommunication did not violate due process; and
3 excommunication was not so outrageous as to support claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
You may want to make special note of this one as the suit was for intentional infliction of emotional distress
Guinn V church of Christ of Collinsville
Supreme Court of Oklahoma 775P.2d 766
Former member of religious congregation brought personal injury action against church elders for their alleged “invasion of privacy” and “intentional infliction of emotional distress” in continuing to denounce member as “fornicator” even after she had withdrawn from church. The District Court, Tulsa County, Tony M. Graham, J., entered judgment in favor of plaintiff, and defendants appealed. The Supreme Court, Opala, V.C.J., held that: (1) elders' disciplinary actions against member of church congregation prior to her withdrawal from church, consisting of their meetings with member to confront her with her sin and to request that she repent, were shielded from judicial scrutiny by free exercise clause of First Amendment; (2) elders' continued denunciation of member after she had withdrawn from church was not protected by First Amendment; and (3) church elders did not enjoy either an absolute or a qualified privilege to continue to denounce member after she had terminated membership in church.
You may want to make special note of this one as the suit was for intentional infliction of emotional distress
Burgess v Rock Creek Baptist Church
United States Distict Court, District of Columbia 734F.Supp. 30
Former church member brought suit against church and its officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages for the defendants' alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress in terminating her membership and treating her as a nonmember. Upon defendants' motion for summary judgment, the District Court, Charles R. Richey, J., held that dispute regarding propriety of church officials' termination of plaintiff's church membership was a matter of “ecclesiastical cognizance” that district court was precluded from adjudicating pursuant to separation of church and state compelled by First Amendment.
Pfeil v St Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church of Unaltered Augsburg Confession of Worthington
Supreme Court of Minnesota 877N.W.2d 528
Background: Former parishioners brought action against church and its pastors for defamation and negligence. The District Court, Nobles County, dismissed claims. Former parishioners appealed. The Court of Appeals, 2015 WL 134055), affirmed. Former parishioners sought review.
Holding: The Supreme Court, Anderson), J., held that under First Amendment, pastors and church were not liable for statements made during course of formal church discipline proceedings.
Williams v Gleason
Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th District) 26 S.W. 3d54
Church members filed claims against church's elders and others for libel, slander, and other torts related to disciplinary action brought by church's elders against members. The District Court, Harris County, Katie Kennedy), J., entered summary judgment for defendants. Members appealed. The Court of Appeals, Joe L. Draughn, J. (Assigned), held that: (1) members failed to establish prima facie tort case against individual defendants given that appellate court was constitutionally prohibited from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over ecclesiastical dispute, and (2) members could not involve state in ecclesiastical government by using civil justice system to review ecclesiastical judicatory's action.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
Grunwald v Bornfreund
Eastern District Court of New York 696 F.Supp. 838
In action under RICO and state law, plaintiff moved for writ of mandate prohibiting rabbinical congress and defendants from making any efforts to have plaintiff withdraw action and submit it to rabbinical court and from excommunicating plaintiff, his counsel and staff. The District Court, Sifton, J., held that: (1) it was beyond the powers of court to stop excommunication so long as excommunicationresults of nothing more than plaintiff being excluded from his religious community, and (2) allegations that plaintiff will suffer battery, trespass or theft in the absence of religious prohibition against those acts did not warrant injunction in absence of showing that such injury was imminent or likely.
Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, inc v Waldner
Supreme Court of South Dakota 791 N.W. 2d 169
Background: Members of one faction of communal religious colony brought action against opposing faction, seeking resolution of governance dispute. The Fifth Judicial Circuit Court, Brown County, Jack R. Von Wald), J., dismissed complaint for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that the matter involved a religious dispute. Plaintiff faction appealed.
Holding: The Supreme Court, Zinter), J., held that state courts had no jurisdiction to consider governance dispute between the factions, as resolution of the governance question was dependent upon resolution of religious disputes.
Tran v Fiorenza
Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st District) 934 S.W. 2d 740
Priest brought defamation action against bishop and diocese of church, to recover for communications by bishop that priest was excommunicated. The 333rd District Court, Harris County, J.S. Blackburn, J., granted summary judgment for bishop and diocese. The Court of Appeals, Taft), J., held that issue of whether priest was actually excommunicated was ecclesiastical matter, such that First Amendment barred action.
Korean Presbyterian Church of Seattle Normalization Committee v Lee
Court of Appeals of Washington Division 1 75 Wash.App. 833
Excommunicated church members sued church and church officials for tort of outrage for announcing excommunications to congregation from pulpit. The Superior Court, Snohomish County, Larry McKeeman), J., denied defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals, Kennedy), J., held that ecclesiastical abstention doctrine precluded recovery.
O’Connor v Diocese of Honolulu
Supreme Court of Hawaii 77 Hawai’I 383
Catholic newspaper publisher brought action against diocese and various diocesan officials, claiming that he was wrongfully excommunicateddue to diocese's opposition to views expressed in his newspaper. The First Circuit Court, City and County of Honolulu, dismissed with prejudice, and publisher appealed. The Supreme Court, Moon), C.J., held that ecclesiastical abstention doctrine embodied in both State and Federal Constitutions barred state court from addressing any of publisher's claims because their resolution would require resolution of controversies over church doctrine, law, or polity.
Ming Tung v China Buddhist Association
Supreme Court,Appellate Division, Fist Department, New York 124 A.D. 3d 13
Background: Members of religious organization until they were excommunicatedcommenced proceeding under Article 78, seeking an order directing organization to hold an annual membership meeting, as required by its bylaws, appoint a receiver to determine names and addresses of all its members eligible to vote, and hold a vote regarding its future. The Supreme Court, New York County, Geoffrey D. Wright), J., 2012 WL 11946612), granted the petition to extent of invalidating organization's membership meeting and directing that another general meeting be held with members included. Organization appealed.
Holding: The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Gische), J., held that members' petition presented nonjusticiable religious issues that could not be resolved through application of neutral principles of law.
Anderson V Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Tennessee 2007 WL 161035 (Only the westlaw citation is currently available)
No Synopsis is available on Westlaw at this time
You may want to make special note of this one as the suit was for intentional infliction of emotional distress
Marks v Estate of Hartgerink
Surpeme Court of Iowa 528 N.W.2d 539
After he was disciplined and ultimately excommunicated by church, former member brought action against church officials for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Church officials moved for summary judgment, and the District Court, Butler County, B.H. McKinley), J., granted motion. Former member appealed, and the Supreme Court, Andreasen), J., held that: (1) decision of church to excommunicatemember was purely ecclesiastical decision with which court would not interfere; (2) letters which had been sent only to member had not been published and could not give rise to defamation action; (3) oral communications to other church members that member had been disciplined and excommunicated were true and were absolutely protected; (4) qualified privilege attaches to statements made in context of church disciplinary proceeding or during course of ecclesiastical trial; (5) statements were not made with actual malice and were privileged as evidence presented to establish actual malice was evidence of conduct of persons who were not defendants and was irrelevant; and (6) conduct of church officials did not give rise to action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
How about the Ninth circuit such as paul v watchtower. How about monatana supreme court. How about the Hawaii supreme court. How about arizona, Florida. Or california supreme court.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
If you want a lawsuit of a long term member being disfellowshipped and it affecting family relationship. You can look at Anderson v Watchtower. The plantiff makes the claim that her son is prevented from speaking with her. The appeals court rules that there is no legal claim over such alienation.
this is a very good document from a law school exploring religious freedom vs an individuals right to religious freedom without blackmail, pressure, etc, and also explores why certain lawsuits did not win and what it would take to win them.
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=3827&context=penn_law_review.
a person born in, and whose parents or family pressured to shun because they simply left the religion, who has evidence of damages, etc, would likely have a good case if they find a good lawyer.
Again what law would you sue over.. the example you gave was for a violation of the employment equal rights act. What law are you going to sue over.
