tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post1725049544711038353..comments2024-03-27T08:46:54.369-04:00Comments on BabyBlueOnline: BREAKING NEWS: U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari on Gauss and TimberridgeAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17490745238430648958noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-50207795198070134242012-06-21T00:11:20.177-04:002012-06-21T00:11:20.177-04:00The Falls Church (the one that departed the Episco...The Falls Church (the one that departed the Episcopal Church, not the one that stayed) situation is a bit different from this one, Anon 1211. They have petitioned the Virginia Supreme Court, not the Supreme Court of the United States, and have raised multiple issues under state law. The US Supreme Court takes very few cases for review. The percentage of cases taken for review by the Virginia Supreme Court is much higher. If I had to wager, my nickel would be on the Virginia Supreme Court granting review on at least one of the issues advanced by the seceding Falls Church parishioners. If I am correct about that (I am frequently wrong in my predictions on legal matters, but have been right far more on church property issues than any other denizen of these blogs that traffic in such issues), the case advanced by those who left the Church but tried to take the buildings will get an airing at the Virginia Supreme Court on at least one assignment of error (my hunch is the donative intent issue). However, if the petition is granted, folks at this and a few other sites should contain their enthusiasm for the the recognition that a grant of a petition is not terribly informative about the ultimate ruling on the merits. <br /><br />ScoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-82182171938959134352012-06-20T12:11:14.835-04:002012-06-20T12:11:14.835-04:00Anon -
Slender reed for the Falls Church to hope ...Anon -<br /><br />Slender reed for the Falls Church to hope for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-21998394183215459752012-06-19T20:35:49.190-04:002012-06-19T20:35:49.190-04:00This spells doom.This spells doom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-49104449084459405012012-06-18T21:48:05.345-04:002012-06-18T21:48:05.345-04:00It also probably means that 0-3of them thought the...It also probably means that 0-3of them thought there was a federal issue raised. The trouble with these church cases (at least from the viewpoint of anyone who wants them to be reviewed at the federal level), is that they largely turn on state law issues.<br /><br />ScoutAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-85964167884168345832012-06-18T15:04:52.626-04:002012-06-18T15:04:52.626-04:00Mr. Haley, who I think may have been involved in s...Mr. Haley, who I think may have been involved in some litigation over property, has correctly stated that the decision does not necessarily mean that the Justices agree with the decision in CT. It does, I would think, mean that there aren't four of the Justices who think that the decision is so likely to be wrong that it requires review and that it is an important enough matter for them to take time to review.Daniel Weirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11430381764138066595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-17058745354550788852012-06-18T13:39:08.015-04:002012-06-18T13:39:08.015-04:00Ouch. That smarts.Ouch. That smarts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23327221.post-28481759484796765792012-06-18T13:12:56.342-04:002012-06-18T13:12:56.342-04:00As of now, the various States' decisions stand...As of now, the various States' decisions stand. <br /><br />JFFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com