Kreshik v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 363 U.S. 190, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1140, 80 S. Ct. 1037, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1011, SCDB 1959-091

Decision Date: 6/6/1960

Docket Number: No. 824

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Kreshik v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church, 363 U.S. 190, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1140, 80 S. Ct. 1037, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1011, SCDB 1959-091 (1960)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1960

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Highly CitedTop 1% most-cited · cited by 93 decisions

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1960s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

5th Cir.4

Cal. Ct. App.4

Ohio Ct. App.4

9th Cir.3

Minn. Ct. App.3

11th Cir.2

Most recently cited by10

2025Atlantic Korean American Presbytery v. Shalom Presbyterian Church of Washington, Inc. Va. Ct. App.
2022Holy Spirit Association For The Unification Of World Christianity v. World Peaceand Unification Sanctuary, Inc. M.D. Penn.
2020Gaddy v. Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, The D. Utah
2020JACQUELINE NAPOLITANO vs ST. JOSEPH CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THOMAS WALDEN, F/K/A THOMAS WANITSKY, AS PASTOR OF ST. JOSEPH CATHOLIC CHURCH, HIS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS IN OFFICE Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
2020Will McRaney v. N Amer Mission Bd So Baptist 5th Cir.
2018Hubbard v. J Message Grp. Corp. D.N.M.
2018Steiner v. American Friends of Lubavitch D.C.
2018Episcopal Church v. Salazar Tex. App. Ct.
2018Pure Presbyterian Church of Wash. v. Grace of God Presbyterian Church Va.
2017Puri v. Khalsa 9th Cir.

Cites 5 cases

National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson
Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church of North America v. Kreshik
Shelley v. Kraemer
Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church in North America
Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America v. Kedroff

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

KRESHIK et al. v. SAINT NICHOLAS CATHEDRAL OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OF NORTH AMERICA.

Attorneys

Philip Adler and Eugene Oressman for petitioners.
Ralph Montgomery Arkush and Charles H. Tuttle for respondent.

majority Per Curiam.

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 Corporations 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.