A Whistleblower “Minister” Loses in the Illinois Supreme Court

LESLIE C. GRIFFIN

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin comments on a recent decision by the Illinois Supreme Court characterizing a “lay principal” at a Catholic school as a “minister” and therefore dismissing her claim under the Illinois Whistleblower Act under the so-called “ministerial exception.” Professor Griffin argues that the ministerial exception gives churches pure religious freedom to dismiss all legal claims against them, rendering them entirely unaccountable for their unlawful actions.

Read More

In re Trust Created by McGregor

Citation: 308 Neb. 405

Opinion Date: February 12, 2021

Judge: Funke

Areas of Law: Contracts, Trusts & Estates

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the county court declining to approve a nonjudicial settlement agreement, holding that the agreement violated a material purpose of the trust, of which Appellant was a beneficiary. Appellant, a beneficiary of a trust created by his father, now deceased, filed this action in the county court seeking approval of a trust settlement agreement entered into between Appellant, his mother, and his sister. Appellant further sought an order requiring compliance with the terms of the agreement. The trial court issued an order rejecting the agreement and finding that the agreement was nonbinding under Neb. Rev. Stat. 30-3811. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the probate court did not err in finding that the agreement altered a material purpose of the trust and in declining to approve the agreement.

Hogan v. Hogan

Citation: 308 Neb. 397

Opinion Date: February 12, 2021

Judge: Lindsey Miller-Lerman

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Appellant's complaint to modify the parties' divorce decree and parenting plan with the ultimate objective of allowing her to move with the parties' children to Nebraska, holding that the district court correctly determined that proper jurisdiction of the issue is with Arizona. After the decree and parenting plan were entered, the district court entered an order modifying the parenting plan to permit the parties to move from Nebraska to Arizona. After the parties and the children moved to Arizona Appellant filed the current complaint. The district court dismissed the complaint to modify, determining that it lacked continuing exclusive jurisdiction over the child custody determination and that proper jurisdiction of the current issue is with Arizona. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's jurisdictional ruling was proper and that Appellant's assignments of error were without merit.

Weaver v. Weaver

Citation: 308 Neb. 373

Opinion Date: February 12, 2021

Judge: Freudenberg

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the court of appeals reversing the judgment of the district court denying Father's motion to modify parenting time, holding that the district court abused its discretion. At issue was the interpretation of a provision in the parties' custody agreement incorporated into the divorce decree stating that if a dispute over modification were submitted to a court, the court would apply the "then-governing legal standard." In denying Father's motion, the district court concluded that although more parenting time with Father would be in the child's best interests, Father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed and remanded the case, holding (1) the agreement incorporated into the decree did not purport to set forth the legal standard under which a court could adjudicate a complaint to modify; and (2) there was a material change in circumstances.

In re Prince R.

Citation: 308 Neb. 415

Opinion Date: February 12, 2021

Judge: Papik

Areas of Law: Juvenile Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the juvenile court adjudicating Prince R. as a child who lacked proper parental care by reason of the fault or habits of his parents, holding that the juvenile court did not err. In its adjudication petition, the State asserted that Prince's parents had failed to ensure that Prince received necessary medical care after he was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer. After a hearing, the juvenile court found that Prince lacked proper parental care by reason of the fault or habits of the parents and that the parents' actions placed Prince at a definite risk of harm. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court did not err by adjudicating Prince as a child that lacked proper parental care by reason of the fault or habits of his parents.

Dreesen Enterprises, Inc. v. Dreesen

Citation: 308 Neb. 433

Opinion Date: February 12, 2021

Judge: William B. Cassel

Areas of Law: Landlord - Tenant, Real Estate & Property Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court evicting Defendant from a property and quieting title to it in Plaintiff, Defendant's former husband's corporation (the corporation) but awarding Plaintiff a judgment for the money she provided for its downpayment, holding that the district court did not err. After Plaintiff failed to pay rent for two years the corporation initiated eviction proceedings. Plaintiff denied being a tenant and claimed to co-owned the property. Plaintiff then filed a complaint asking the district court to quiet title to the property in the corporation and restore the premises to it. Defendant filed a countercomplaint requesting partition or, alternative, a constructive trust and restitution. The district court quieted title to the property in Plaintiff. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court did not err in quieting title to the corporation, declining to partition the property or impose a constructive trust upon it, restoring the premises to the corporation, and awarding Defendant a monetary judgment for an unpaid loan.