lexisONE® Community

1. North Coast Women's Care Medical Group, Inc. v. Superior Court, S142892, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, August 18, 2008, Filed

OVERVIEW: In a claim for sexual orientation discrimination, clinical physicians who refused to perform an intrauterine insemination for a lesbian patient could not assert an affirmative defense based on the free exercise of religion because neither the First Amendment nor Cal. Const., art. I, § 4, exempted them from complying with the Unruh Civil Rights Act.

2. People v. Howard, S029489, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, February 4, 2008, Filed

OVERVIEW: No error occurred under Pen. Code, § 1140, when, after more than two weeks of death penalty deliberations, the trial court asked whether either of two jurors seeking to be discharged would be willing to stay because the retained juror was clearly prepared to continue doing his duty as a juror, even though serving entailed personal sacrifice.

3. Thompson v. Department of Corrections, No. S071080. , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, March 22, 2001, Decided

OVERVIEW: A corrections department order refusing to allow a prisoner's spiritual advisor to remain with him until his departure for the execution chamber was a constitutionally valid prison regulation.

4. E. Bay Asian Local Dev. Corp. v. Cal., No. S077396. , SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, December 21, 2000, Decided

OVERVIEW: Notwithstanding establishment clause challenges, statutes granting religious organizations an exemption from landmark designation had a secular purpose and relieved religious entities of a potential burden on free exercise of religion.

5. People v. Rubin, No. B201672, COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX, December 1, 2008, Filed

OVERVIEW: In a case in which defendant was convicted for selling marijuana and possessing marijuana for sale, the trial court did not err in excluding reference to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 on the ground that it did not provide a defense; the trial court also did not err in excluding defense reference to the First Amendment.

6. Central Coast Baptist Assn. v. First Baptist Church of Las Lomas, H029958** Reporter's Note: Review granted November 14, 2007, S156770; review dismissed and opinion ordered republished on March 11, 2009., COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, August 23, 2007, Filed

OVERVIEW: In a case in which a voluntary association of Southern Baptist churches sought to enforce a reversionary clause contained in a Baptist church's constitution, trial court had jurisdiction to determine whether there had been a dissolution or winding up of the organization, as such a determination did not involve trial court in any religious issues.

7. Paulson v. Abdelnour, D047702 , COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, November 30, 2006, Filed

OVERVIEW: A local initiative proposition transferring ownership of a veterans' memorial site, which contained a large cross, to the federal government did not establish religion in violation of the First Amendment or Cal. Const., art. I, § 4, because the transfer had the valid secular purpose of preserving the historic memorial.

8. Valov v. Department of Motor Vehicles, B175665 , COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION FIVE, September 20, 2005, Filed

OVERVIEW: A driver's First Amendment claim that the California DMV violated his right to the free exercise of religion when it refused to exempt him from a photograph requirement for driver's licenses failed because the requirement was a neutral, generally applicable requirement that was rationally related to achieving legitimate governmental interests.

9. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, B177852, B180696 , COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE, July 25, 2005, Filed

OVERVIEW: Documents made in the course of “troubled-priest interventions” by an archdiocese had to be disclosed in a grand jury investigation into allegations of child molestation by priests. The documents were not privileged under Cal. Evid. Code § 1032 because both parties to the original communications knew they would be transmitted to a third person.

10. Singh v. Singh, A100705 , COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO, January 20, 2004, Filed

OVERVIEW: Trial court did not unconstitutionally interpret religious doctrine in finding that the terms of office of the directors of a religious corporation had expired; because the bylaws did not specify a term, the one-year statutory term applied.

« Back to Top

Did you find the case you're looking for in these results?
If not, check the available jurisdictions and courts for Free lexisONE Case Searches.