ILNews

SCOTUS declines church property dispute case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Supreme Court of the United States will not take a case involving a dispute between churches over property.

The U.S. justices considered The Presbytery of Ohio Valley, Inc., et al. v. OPC, Inc., et al., 12-907, at the court’s April 26 conference and declined to grant certiorari. Olivet Presbyterian Church and the denominational organization it was previously affiliated with, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and later subsidiary organizations, ended up in court over property Olivet wanted to keep after it decided to leave PC (USA).

The trial court ruled in favor of Olivet, citing that the deed of the property belonged to Olivet. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for Olivet and ordered judgment entered in favor of the national church organization. The COA found that Olivet has no right, title or interest in the property.

The Indiana Supreme Court in July 2012 reversed, finding neither the trial court nor the Court of Appeals correctly ruled in the dispute. The majority of justices held that genuine issues of disputed fact must be resolved at trial rather than on summary judgment. Justices Mark Massa and Frank Sullivan Jr. dissented without opinion.

The SCOTUS also denied cert to Darrell Wayne Hughes v. Indiana, 12-8926. Prisoner Darrell Hughes petitioned the court pro se in August 2012 to take his case alleging conspiracy against numerous elected officials, judges, and correctional department officials.

Justice Stephen Breyer, 74, was not at court Monday after injuring his shoulder in a bicycle accident Friday. He was hospitalized and underwent reverse shoulder replacement surgery. He is expected to be released from the hospital early this week.

The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to hand down opinions in two Indiana cases before it – Maetta Vance v. Ball State University, et al., 11-566; and Vernon Hugh Brown v. Monsanto Co., et al., 11-796. At issue in Vance is whether the supervisor liability rule applies to harassment by people whom the employer authorizes to direct or oversee the victim’s daily work, or whether the supervisor liability rule is limited to those harassers who have the power to “hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer or discipline” their victim. The Circuit courts have been split in decisions on this issue.

In Brown, the justices will decided whether the federal circuit erred by refusing to find the patent had been exhausted on seeds sold for planting and by creating an exception to the doctrine of patent exhaustion for self-replicating technologies.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT