Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Erdman v. Chapel Hill Presbyterian Church
Washington Supreme Court
Decided October 4, 2012No. 84998-6Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partChambers, J.
¶60 (dissenting in part/concurring in part) — I agree with the lead opinion in result but on different grounds. Angela Erdman submitted her claims to a tribunal of a hierarchal church. She is now bound by its decision. However, I cannot agree with the lead opinion that the ministerial exception doctrine plays any role here.
¶61 Since the beginning of our republic, our courts have strived to protect both the rights of religious institutions to *685be free of unwarranted governmental interference and the rights of individuals to the protection of the laws. Different courts have adopted different…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. SmithSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of HialeahSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Watson v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Presbyterian Church in US v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian ChurchSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Jones v. WolfSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.