Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dlaikan v. Roodbeen

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided September 6, 1994No. Docket 155595Published

1DissentTaylor, J.

I dissent from the majority opinion because I believe that it mistakenly creates an irrebuttable presumption in favor of *595religious institutions. Adjudication of plaintiffs’ contract claim will not result in "[setting] foot on the proverbial slippery slope toward entanglement in matters of doctrine or ecclesiastical polity.” Ante at 593. To the contrary, by its unwarranted and unwise expansion of the ecclesiastical exception provided by the Free Exercise Clause, the majority has created a jurisprudential black hole in which the exception swallows the rule of law.

This is an action by three…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Wisconsin v. YoderSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. Watson v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
  4. Jones v. WolfSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  5. Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church in North AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1952

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API