KRESHIK ET AL.
v.
SAINT NICHOLAS CATHEDRAL OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OF NORTH AMERICA
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 Court held that the state's judicial branch applying state power to impair an ecclesiastical right is unconstitutional, as established in a prior ruling.
Petitioners' predecessors were denied use of a cathedral based on a state court's finding that the Patriarch's appointee could not validly exercise th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Separation Of Church And State cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed upon the record in No. 3, October Term; 1952, and the petition for certiorari, are granted.
In a prior decision in this litigation, we held that the right conferred under canon law upon the Archbishop of the North American Archdiocese of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, as the appointee of the Patriarch of Moscow, to the use and occupancy of the St. Nicholas Cathedral in New York City, owned by respondent corporation, was “strictly a matter of ecclesiastical government,” and as such could not constitutionally be impaired by a state statute, New York Religious Corporations Law, Art. 5-C, purporting to bestow that right on another. Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U. S. 94. We reversed a judgment of the New York Court of Appeals against the petitioners’ predecessors in office, and remanded the case for “further action . . . not in contravention” of our opinion. Id., at 121.
The Court of Appeals ordered a retrial of the question of petitioners’ right to use and occupancy, on a common-law issue assertedly left open by our invalidation of the statutory basis for the former decision. 306 N. Y. 38, 114 N. E. 2d 197. After trial, the Court of Appeals directed the entry of judgment against petitioners, holding that, by reason of the domination — so found by that court to be the fact — of the Patriarch by the secular authority in the U. S. S. R., his appointee could not under the common law of New York validly exercise the right to occupy the Cathedral. 7 N. Y. 2d 191, 164 N. E. 2d 687.
As the opinions of the Court of Appeals make evident, compare 302 N. Y., at 29-33, 96 N. E. 2d, at 72-74, with 7 N. Y. 2d, at 209-216, 164 N. E. 2d, at 696-700, the decision now under review rests on the same premises which were found to have underlain the enactment of the statute struck down in Kedroff. 344 U. S., at 117-118. But it is established doctrine that “[i]t is not of moment that the State has here acted solely through its judicial branch, for whether legislative or judicial, it is still the application of state power which we are asked to scrutinize.” N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 463. See Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1, 14-16, and cases there cited. Accordingly, our ruling in Kedroff is controlling here, and requires dismissal of the complaint.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Malicki v. DOE, 814 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 2002)…convictions but the conduct itself must be free from government regulation.” Smith, 494 U.S. at 882, 110 S.Ct. 1595. Government regulation includes both statutory law and court action through civil lawsuits. See Kreshik v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 363 U.S. 190, 191, 80 S.Ct. 1037, 4 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1960). Importantly, before the constitutional right to free exercise of religion is implicated, the threshold inquiry is whether the conduct sought to be regulated was “rooted in religious belief.” Wisconsin v.…1 / 2
-
Governor John Ellis "Jeb" Bush v. Holmes, 886 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…Clause; “It is not of moment that the State has here acted solely through its judicial branch, for whether legislative or judicial, it is still the application of state power which we are asked to scrutinize.”); Kreshik v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, 363 U.S. 190, 191, 80 S.Ct. 1037, 4 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1960) (stating that "whether legislative or judicial, it is still the application of state power which we are asked to scrutinize"); Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 18, 68 S.Ct. 836, 92 L.Ed. 1161 (1948) (stating…1 / 2
-
Napolitano v. ST. Joseph Catholic Church & Thomas Walden, 308 So. 3d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…orresponding results. See, e.g., Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem’l Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 451 (1969) (recognizing that civil courts forbidden to interpret and weigh church doctrine); Kreshik v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 363 U.S. 190, 191 (1960) (recognizing that First Amendment prevented judiciary, as well as legislature, from interfering in ecclesiastical governance of Russian Orthodox Church); Kedroff, 344 U.S. at 119 (same). Most recently, in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v.…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Nat'l Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama Ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (U.S. 1958)
- Shelley et ux. v. Kraemer et ux., 334 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1948)
- Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church in N. Am., 344 U.S. 94 (U.S. 1952)