King v. Tatum
Supreme Court of Alabama
1ConcurrenceParker, Justice
I agree with this Court’s decision to deny the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Cornell L. Tatum, Sr., Charlie Hardy, and Charles Lancaster (“the petitioners”). I write specially to emphasize that a circuit court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to apply judicial notions of due process to church proceedings when the highest adjudicatory body of a church decides a purely ecclesiastical matter. Additionally, I write to note that, a circuit court may recognize a decision by the highest adjudicatory body of a church concerning a purely ecclesiastical matter and, based on that decision,…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Watson v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v. MilivojevichSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church in North AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of ColoradoCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2002
- GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. v. The State of GeorgiaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2012
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.