Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Showing posts with label Christian Science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christian Science. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Church That Is Potential Trust Beneficiary Lacks Standing To Seek Independent Trustee
In In re Trust of Mary Baker Eddy, (NH Sup. Ct., June 14, 2019), held that a Christian Science church in Australia that is a potential beneficiary of a trust created under the will of Christian Science founder Mary Baker Eddy lacks standing to seek the appointment of an independent trustee. The New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded that the Australian congregation failed to show that it had a sufficient special interest in the trust to create standing. Sentinel & Enterprise News reports on the decision.
Labels:
Christian Science,
New Hampshire,
Standing
Wednesday, November 04, 2015
District Court Upholds Denial of Medicare Reimbursement To Christian Science Nursing Training Programs
In Chestnut Hill Benevolent Association v. Burwell, (D DC, Nov. 3, 2015), the D.C. federal district court upheld a ruling by the Center for Medicare Services that four Christian Science nursing facilities were not entitled to Medicare reimbursement for furnishing "approved educational activities." The court concluded that while the Christian Science Nursing Arts Training Programs offered by these facilities are accredited by the Commission for Accreditation of Christian Science Nursing Organizations/Facilities, the Commission's standards do not meet those required by Medicare regulations.
Labels:
Christian Science,
Medicare
Friday, November 29, 2013
Court Says Free Exercise Challenge To Blood Alcohol Test Not Clearly Raised
In In re Refusal of Milewski, 2013 Wisc. App. LEXIS 996 (WI App., Nov. 27, 2013), a Wisconsin state appeals court rejected an appeal by Victoria Milewski, a Christian Scientist,whose drivers license was suspended after she refused to take a blood alcohol test. She told officers that her religion did not allow her to permit the intrusion of a needle into her body, but officers refused to give her a urine test instead. At trial, Milewski's counsel argued that Milewski had made a reasonable objection to the blood draw. The appeals court said:
it appears that Milewski might have been ... attempting to present a First Amendment challenge to the implied consent law.... That is, Milewski might have meant to argue that the implied consent statutory scheme ... impermissibly burdens her right to practice her religion .... I express no opinion about the potential merits of such an argument, because it has not been clearly presented in this refusal proceeding, and certainly has not been supported by legal authority. Therefore, I have no reasonable alternative but to reject it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)