147 Ind. App. 295 - Price v. Merryman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 31 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Thus, the First Amendment severely circumscribes the role that civil courts may play in resolving church property disputes. It is obvious, however, that not every civil court decision as to property claimed by a religious organization jeopardizes values protected by the First Amendment. Civil courts do not inhibit free exercise of religion merely by opening their doors to disputes involving church property. And there are neutral principles of law, developed for use in all property disputes, which can be applied without ‘establishing’ churches to which property is awarded. But First Amendment values are plainly jeopardized when church property litigation is made to turn on the resolution by civil courts of controversies over religious doctrine and practice. If civil courts undertake to resolve such controversies in order to adjudicate the property dispute, the hazards are ever present of inhibiting the free development of religious doctrine and of implicating secular interests in matters of purely ecclesiastical concern. Because of these hazards, the First Amendment enjoins the employment of organs of government for essentially religious purposes, School District of Township of Abington, Pa. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 , 83 S.Ct. 1560 , 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963); the Amendment therefore commands civil courts to decide church property disputes without resolving underlying controversies over religious doctrine. Hence, States, religious organizations, and individuals must structure rel”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Marich v. Kragulac · 35 Colo. App. 257 - Bernson v. Koch

2. “"On appeal this court accepts the ultimate facts as stated by the trial court if there is evidence to sustain them. Carpenter v. Wisniewski, [ 139 Ind. App. 325 ], 215 N.E.2d 882 (1966). All intendments are taken in favor of the findings. Jones v. Greiger, 130 Ind. App. 526 , 166 N.E.2d 868 (1960). "Where the special findings of fact are not challenged by a motion for a new trial the appellant admits for purpose of appeal generally that the facts are correctly found. Where alleged error is presented in the conclusion of law this court may not consider the evidence but only the findings of fact. The special findings of fact are accepted as true. See Wiltrout, Indiana Practice, § 1664 and the cases cited therein."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 154 Ind. App. 346 - Cook v. Michigan Mutual Liability Company

3. “to render impotent the implied trust theory in so far as such theory is based upon principles of ecclesiastical law, church doctrine, or church discipline. It is clear that the civil courts cannot rely upon ecclesiastical law of the church to impose an implied trust upon real estate.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Presbytery of Ohio Valley, Inc. v. OPC, Inc.