Meshel v. Ohev Sholom Talmud Torah

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “the rules . . . governing the formation, interpretation, and enforcement of contracts . . . are ‘neutral principles of law’ that civil courts may apply” in deciding cases that arise out of a religious context
• compelling arbitration by rabbinical court, consistent with neutral principles, where synagogue's bylaws required arbitration of members' claims against the congregation
• invoking “neutral principles of contract law” to enforce an arbitration clause, even though the underlying dispute involved a religious controversy
• a court may consider religious language where there is no “material dispute between the parties” as to its meaning
• suit to compel arbitration appears religious on its face, but sounds in “well-established, neutral principles of contract law”
• “[T]he Establishment Clause precludes civil courts from resolving disputes involving religious organizations whenever such disputes affect religious doctrine or church polity or administration[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).