McKelvey v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church (2004), Norman Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for the Diocese of Memphis (2012)
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 35 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · Lemon v. Kurtzman · Wisconsin v. Yoder · Employment Division Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. L Smith · Agostini v. Felton Chancellor Board of Education of the City of New York
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Before barring a specific cause of action, a court first must analyze each element of every claim and determine whether adjudication would require the court to choose between competing religious visions, or cause interference with a church’s administrative prerogatives. . .. The court must next examine the remedies sought by the plaintiff and decide whether enforcement of a judgment would require excessive procedural or substantive interference with church operations. If the answer to either of those inquiries is in the affirmative, then the dispute is truly of a religious nature . . . and the claim is barred from secular court review. If, however, the dispute can be resolved by the application of purely neutral principles of law and without impermissible government intrusion . . . there is no First Amendment shield to litigation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[t]he First Amendment does not immunize every legal claim against a religious institution and its members. The analysis in each case is fact-sensitive and claim specific, requiring an assessment of every issue raised in terms of doctrinal and administrative intrusion and entanglement.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Black's remaining claim for sexual harassment is based on pre-discharge conduct by Snyder and the church. She claims that Snyder's conduct created a hostile work environment, which the church failed to prevent or to remedy, and that these conditions violated the Human Rights Act. We recognize that sexual discrimination inheres in the pastoral appointments of some churches and has been granted, in effect, a constitutional exemption under both the free exercise and establishment clauses. However, no court has extended a similar protection over sexual harassment claims based on conduct during the employment relationship. Black's sexual harassment claim is unrelated to pastoral qualifications or issues of church doctrine. Because she does not seek reinstatement but only monetary damages, any prospective remedy would not require extensive court oversight. * * * . . . Permitting Black's claim to go forward presents no greater conflict with the church's disciplinary authority than that presented in cases enforcing child abuse laws . . . We hold, therefore, that the first amendment does not bar Black from litigating her sexual harassment claim. We are unpersuaded that enforcing the Human Rights Act's harassment prohibitions would actually burden the church's religious practices, in light of the church's own policy against such conduct. Even if this regulation would incidentally burden religious activity or belief, Black is entitled to assert this claim because the state's interest in”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.