Tran v. Fiorenza

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the priest’s defamation claim arose out of the church’s decision to fire him
• holding that statements made by bishop concerning priest’s ex-communication were part of ecclesiastical transaction, which was determination of priestly authority
• holding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over catholic priest’s claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional harm
• holding that whether priest had been excommunicated—divesting him of his priestly authority—was unavoidably an ecclesiastical matter even if the truth of that fact would bar his defamation claim
• indicating that religious institutions do not have “broad immunity against being sued in civil courts”
• requiring court to look to complaint’s substance and effect, rather than to causes of action pleaded, in determining whether complaint implicates ecclesiastical matters

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).