362 So. 2d 2 - Mills v. Baldwin’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 2013
7 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
Relies on Presbyterian Church in US v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church · Watson v. Jones · Reid v. Barry · 102 So. 2d 714 - St. John's Presbytery v. Central Presbyterian Church of St. Petersburg · 102 So. 2d 720 - Froelich v. Rowley
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“ARTICLE II The general nature of the object of the corporation is the support of the public worship of Almighty God, according to the faith and discipline of The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and of The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Florida. It acknowledges itself to be a member of and to belong to the said Church in the Diocese of South Florida. As such it accedes to, recognizes and adopts the constitution, canons, doctrine, discipline and worship of Th« Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, and the constitution and canons of The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Florida. ARTICLE III The members of the corporation shall all be such members of the corporation as may be qualified voters at parish elections for Vestrymen under the canons of The Protestant Episcopal Church regulating the subject in the Diocese of South Florida and said members shall be entitled to vote upon all questions which may properly come before any meeting of the congregation. No person who shall disclaim or refuse conformity with and obedience to the constitution, canons, doctrine or worship of The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America or of The Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of South Florida shall be a member of this corporation or eligible for membership therein; nor shall any such person vote for Vestrymen or be appointed or elected a member of the Church Committee or Vestry,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Duncan v. Watterson“This is an abounding array of authorities but they all treat some phase of litigation growing out of church schisms in which both factions lay claim to the church property. When the church is representative, republican or episcopal in goverment, the authorities uniformly hold that the church property whether held by an express or an implied trust cannot be diverted from the parent church by those who withdraw from it and form a separate denomination. It matters not whether those who withdraw from the mother church constitute a majority or a minority faction, the church property remains with the mother church. There are exceptions to this rule when the schism occurs in a church whose government is congregational in form like the Baptist or Congregational denominations but in churches bound together by associated ecclesiastical government when the local church is obedient to a larger or more important religious organization and is governed by it, such as the Presbyterian,. Catholic, Episcopal, Methodist and Lutheran, I have found no exception to this rule. They could not function under any other rule. [At page 718]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Duncan v. Watterson
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.