PAUL V. WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.
819 F.2d 875 (1987)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Paul (P), a former church member, sought relief from a judgment which
entered summary judgment in favor of Watchtower (D) in a case involving the practice of
shunning.
FACTS: P was raised as a Jehovah's Witness (D) and her mother was very active in the
Church. P attended church meetings from the age of four. In 1967, P officially joined D and
was baptized. P was extremely active in the church devoting an average of 40 hours per month
in door-to-door distribution of D's publications. In addition to engaging in evening home
bible study, she attended church with her family approximately 20 hours per month. She
eventually married another member of the D. In 1975, D's parents were 'disfellowshiped' from
the Church. P decided that she no longer wished to belong to the congregation, or to remain
affiliated with D. In November 1975, P wrote a letter to the congregation withdrawing from
the Church. At the time P disassociated, there was no express sanction for withdrawing from
membership. In September 1981, D issued a new interpretation of the rules governing
disassociated persons; disassociated members were not to be treated as disfellowed members.
D based its announcement on a reading of various passages of the Bible. When P returned to
the area of her former congregation she was shunned by former friends. P a resident of
Alaska, brought suit in Washington State Superior Court alleging common law torts of
defamation, invasion of privacy, fraud, and outrageous conduct. D removed the action to
federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1441 (1982). D moved to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim under Washington law. D sought summary
judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b). The district court denied the 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim, but granted the motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that even if the
practice of shunning was actionable, the court was prohibited from ruling on the issue on
the ground of ecclesiastical abstention. This appeal resulted.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment