Kreshik v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church of North America
Cases that cite this one
113 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Purdum v. Purdum (Kan. Ct. App. 2013)
- Southeastern Pennsylvania Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America v. Meena (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011)
- State v. Bussmann (Minn. 2007)
- Fortin v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland (Me. 2005)
- Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court (Cal. 2004)
- Franco v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Utah 2001)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Elizabeth McDonough v. The Catholic University of America (D.C. Cir. 1996)
- Geraci v. Eckankar (Minn. Ct. App. 1995)
- DeMuth v. Miller (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995)
- Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville (Okla. 1989)
- Brady v. Reiner (W. Va. 1973)
- Mrs. Billie B. McCLURE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the SALVATION ARMY, Defendant-Appellee (5th Cir. 1972)
- MacEdono-bulgarian Orthodox Church Saint Clement Ohridski v. Macedonian Patriotic Organization Fatherland (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)
- MacEdono-bulgarian Orthodox Church St. Clement Ohridski v. Macedonian Patriotic Organizaton Fatherland (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)
- First Methodist Church of Union Springs v. Scott (Ala. 1969)
- Pearson v. Church of God (S.C. Ct. App. 1995)
- Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for United States and Canada v. Milivojevich (Supreme Court of the United States 1976)
- The King's Garden, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America (D.C. Cir. 1974)
- Maryland & Virginia Eldership of the Churches of God v. Church of God at Sharpsburg, Inc. (Md. 1969)
- Maryland & Virginia Eldership of the Churches of God v. Church of God at Sharpsburg, Inc. (Md. 1968)
- Harrison v. Bishop (Ohio Ct. App. 2015)
- In re Multi-Circuit Episcopal Church Property Litigation (Fairfax County Circuit Court 2008)
- In re Episcopal Church Cases (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)
- Odenthal v. Minnesota Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists (Minn. Ct. App. 2003)
- Queen of Angels Hospital v. Younger (Cal. Ct. App. 1977)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The motion for leave to proceed upon the record in No. 3, October Term; 1952, and the petition for certiorari, are granted.
In a prior decision in this litigation, we held that the right conferred under canon law upon the Archbishop of the North American Archdiocese of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church, as the appointee of the Patriarch of Moscow, to the use and occupancy of the St. Nicholas Cathedral in New York City, owned by respondent corporation, was “strictly a matter of ecclesiastical government,” and as such could not constitutionally be impaired by a state statute, New York Religious Corpo *191 rations Law, Art. 5-C, purporting to bestow that right on another. Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U. S. 94. We reversed a judgment of the New York Court of Appeals against the petitioners’ predecessors in office, and remanded the case for “further action . . . not in contravention” of our opinion. Id., at 121.
The Court of Appeals ordered a retrial of the question of petitioners’ right to use and occupancy, on a common-law issue assertedly left open by our invalidation of the statutory basis for the former decision. 306 N. Y. 38, 114 N. E. 2d 197. After trial, the Court of Appeals directed the entry of judgment against petitioners, holding that, by reason of the domination — so found by that court to be the fact — of the Patriarch by the secular authority in the U. S. S. R., his appointee could not under the common law of New York validly exercise the right to occupy the Cathedral. 7 N. Y. 2d 191, 164 N. E. 2d 687.
As the opinions of the Court of Appeals make evident, compare 302 N. Y., at 29-33, 96 N. E. 2d, at 72-74, with 7 N. Y. 2d, at 209-216, 164 N. E. 2d, at 696-700, the decision now under review rests on the same premises which were found to have underlain the enactment of the statute struck down in Kedroff. 344 U. S., at 117-118. But it is established doctrine that “[i]t is not of moment that the State has here acted solely through its judicial branch, for whether legislative or judicial, it is still the application of state power which we are asked to scrutinize.” N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449, 463. See Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1, 14-16, and cases there cited. Accordingly, our ruling in Kedroff is controlling here, and requires dismissal of the complaint.
Reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.