The court begins: “We hold that though the claims arose against a religious backdrop, the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine does not apply because the claims require no inquiry into religious matters.” Plaintiff sued the Rabbi of his Jewish community for failing to correct a false accuser and allegedly helping the false accuser rally the community against him by making false statements. The false statements were serious allegations of grooming children for molestation. The case was dismissed on motion, and other than a letter which the court determines for other reasons does not provide a basis upon which relief may be granted, the opinion is not specific as to what Rabbi Deitsch actually did. Of course, it is difficult to get into such facts on a motion to dismiss. The court reminds us that “religious organizations and officials remain subject to neutral tort laws.” But whether the claims require inquiry into religious matters is never discussed. The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and its relative the ministerial exception are part of the “church autonomy” doctrine and prevent civil litigants from entering church. Without proving up its point that it is not entering the church doors, the court chases down the allegations under tort law and finds there is enough support for an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. It ties up at the end with a remark that the false accuser is not an indispensable party. One may ask why this is a published opinion. It offers a passing reference to the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and an attitude about a motion to dismiss. Nothing more.

It appears that our last post was premature. Due to popular demand (there actually was some of that, believe it or not), the Arizona Appellate Blog can continue. It will, however, be under new management. We’re happy to announce that an extremely knowledgeable and experienced civil practitioner has volunteered to take over. The new blogger may not be as jaded, sour, and judgmental as we have always endeavored to be. But fear not — having to explain these opinions over and over again should cure that soon enough. The next voice you hear will be that of our esteemed successor. Thanks again. 

As of today — November 5, 2020 — the Arizona Appellate Blog has been in operation for twelve years.

And that’s long enough.

Even if we weren’t old and decrepit there are too few truly interesting civil opinions left to blog. We’ve written barely one blog per month this year and not greatly more than that the last couple of years; early on we were annually in the 60s, later in the 40s. Nowadays even Division One is largely a machine for reviewing criminal cases. This trend, not unique to Arizona, is the new normal. It is a significant development, though one not much mentioned at a time when criminal law is assumed to be at the heart of our jurisprudence and of our profession. (That was historically neither the truth nor the assumption among lawyers in general, even relatively recently.)

We will keep the web site up; there are over 500 case blogs here that can be of continued use. But there will be no more new ones. (When you see ads appear on the site that doesn’t mean we’re making money; it means we stopped paying our web hosting service the surcharge that keeps them off.)

We’ve enjoyed doing this and we hope that we’ve helped, or at least entertained, people along the way. Although we’ve never allowed public comments (moderating flame wars would have driven us away long ago), informal feedback from lawyers and judges has been encouraging (except for a few folks who don’t understand the uses of illeism).

Thank you all.