GENERAL COUNCIL ON FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION, UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
v.
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY (BARR ET AL., REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST)
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The General Council on Finance & Administration of the United Methodist Church sought a stay of state court proceedings in California pending the Supreme Court's consideration of its certiorari petition. Justice Rehnquist granted a temporary stay but criticized the applicant for inexcusably delaying its filing until nearly three weeks after the state court denied additional relief and only six days before its pleading deadline, warning that future stay requests would account for such dilatory conduct.
[1] A circuit justice may grant a temporary stay of state court proceedings pending consideration of a petition for a writ of certiorari.
[2] Inexcusable delay in seeking a stay of proceedings may be considered when determining whether to grant further relief.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist, Circuit Justice.
Applicant requests that proceedings in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego in which it is a defendant be stayed as to it pending consideration by this Court of its petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of that court filed March 20, 1978. I have decided to grant a temporary stay of the proceedings against applicant pending receipt and my consideration of a response to the application.
Applicant has, in my opinion, inexcusably delayed the filing of its application for a stay. The Supreme Court of the State of California denied applicant’s petition for hearing on its request for a writ of mandate on July 27, 1978.
On August 3, 1978, the Superior Court granted applicant 30 days from July 27, 1978, until August 28, in which to plead, but denied any additional stay of the proceedings. Applicant did not seek any further stay of the proceedings from either the California Court of Appeal or the California Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, it did not file its application for a stay in this Court until August 22, nearly three weeks after the Superior Court’s order and only six days before it was required to plead. It is only because a delay of a few days will have virtually no effect on the progress of the state-court proceedings that I have decided to grant this temporary stay. It should be noted, however, that in deciding whether to grant or deny any further relief of this nature beyond that provided in this order, I shall take into consideration the above-described delay on the applicant’s part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Malicki v. DOE, 814 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 2002)…secular disputes between third parties and a particular defendant, albeit a religious affiliated organization, in which fraud, breach of contract, and statutory violations are alleged. General Council on Fin. & Admin. v. California Superior Court, 439 U.S. 1355, 1372-73, 99 S.Ct. 35, 58 L.Ed.2d 63 (Rehnquist, Circuit Justice 1978) (emphasis added). A court thus must determine whether the dispute “is an ecclesiastical one about ‘discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom or la…
-
State v. Young, 974 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…g disputes between churches and their parishioners is to avoid having the state “intervene on behalf of groups espousing particular doctrinal beliefs.” Id. (quoting Gen. Council on Fin. & Admin. of the United Methodist Church v. Cal. Superior Court, 439 U.S. 1355, 1372-73, 99 S.Ct. 35, 58 L.Ed.2d 63 (Rehnquist, Circuit Justice 1978)). Ultimately, the court held that there was no First Amendment bar to a suit initiated by parishioners against church officials under a theory of negligent hiring and retention…
-
Ambassador Coll. v. Geotzke, 675 F.2d 662 (5th Cir. 1982)…mpting to sue churches, they are fundamentally different from the instant dispute. As Justice Rehnquist pointed out in General Council on Finance and Administration of the United Methodist Church v. Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, 439 U.S. 1355, 99 S.Ct. 35, 58 L.Ed.2d 63 (Rehnquist, Circuit Justice, 1978), “those cases are premised on a perceived danger that in resolving intrachurch disputes the State will become entangled in essentially religious controversies or intervene on behalf of g…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence