General Council on Finance & Administration, United Methodist Church v. California Superior Court

439 U.S. 1355
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedAugust 30, 1978
DocketA-200
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 439 U.S. 1355 (General Council on Finance & Administration, United Methodist Church v. California Superior Court) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
General Council on Finance & Administration, United Methodist Church v. California Superior Court, 439 U.S. 1355 (1978).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Rehnquist, Circuit Justice.

Applicant requests that proceedings in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego in which it is a defendant be stayed as to it pending consideration by this Court of its petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of that court filed March 20, 1978. I have decided to grant a temporary stay of the proceedings against applicant pending receipt and my consideration of a response to the application.

Applicant has, in my opinion, inexcusably delayed the filing of its application for a stay. The Supreme Court of the State of California denied applicant’s petition for hearing on its request for a writ of mandate on July 27, 1978. On August 3, 1978, the Superior Court granted applicant 30 days from July 27, 1978, until August 28, in which to plead, but denied any additional stay of the proceedings. Applicant did not seek any further stay of the proceedings from either the California Court of Appeal or the California Supreme Court. Nevertheless, it did not file its application for a stay in this Court until August 22, nearly three weeks after the Superior Court’s order and only six days before it was required to plead.

*1356 It is only because a delay of a few days will have virtually no effect on the progress of the state-court proceedings that I have decided to grant this temporary stay. It should be noted, however, that in deciding whether to grant or deny any further relief of this nature beyond that provided in this order, I shall take into consideration the above-described delay on the applicant’s part.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

James Huntsman v. Corporation of the President
76 F.4th 962 (Ninth Circuit, 2023)
Rutland v. Nelson
M.D. Florida, 2021
Hilani v. Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
863 F. Supp. 2d 711 (W.D. Tennessee, 2012)
Carol Petschonek v. The Catholic Diocese of Memphis
Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 2012
Norman Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for the Diocese of Memphis
363 S.W.3d 436 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 2012)
Schmidt v. Catholic Diocese of Biloxi
18 So. 3d 814 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2009)
State v. Young
974 So. 2d 601 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Young v. Gelineau
Superior Court of Rhode Island, 2007
Roman Catholic Diocese of Jackson v. Morrison
905 So. 2d 1213 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2005)
Doe v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp.
268 F. Supp. 2d 139 (D. Connecticut, 2003)
M.K. v. Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon
228 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (D. Oregon, 2002)
JC2 v. Grammond
232 F. Supp. 2d 1166 (D. Oregon, 2002)
Malicki v. Doe
814 So. 2d 347 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2002)
Bryce v. Episcopal Church in Diocese of Colorado
121 F. Supp. 2d 1327 (D. Colorado, 2000)
Olson v. Magnuson
457 N.W.2d 394 (Court of Appeals of Minnesota, 1990)
The Bible Speaks v. Dovydenas
81 B.R. 750 (D. Massachusetts, 1988)
Ambassador College v. Sally J. Geotzke, Etc.
675 F.2d 662 (Fifth Circuit, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
439 U.S. 1355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/general-council-on-finance-administration-united-methodist-church-v-scotus-1978.