# DOE v. THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH U.S.A. OF TULSA

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · December 19, 2017 · 421 P.3d 284

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9879620

## Case

- **Full name:** John DOE (A Pseudonym for the Plaintiff), Plaintiff/Appellant, v. the FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH U.S.A. OF TULSA, Oklahoma, and James D. Miller, Defendants/Appellees.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** December 19, 2017
- **Citations:** 421 P.3d 284; 2017 OK 106
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Reif
- **Judges:** Watt, Winchester, Reif
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9879620

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that “a church has no defense of ecclesiastical jurisdiction for a claim brought by a non-member . . . where it is undisputed, . . . that ‘by admission of both parties, [a party] did not ask to become a full member and otherwise be bound further by the numerous rules of…
- noting the church-autonomy doctrine “operates as an affirmative defense” (quoting Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 195 n.4)

## Opinion text

REIF, J., dissenting
¶ 1 John Doe seeks to hold the Presbyterian Church liable for harm that was perpetrated against him by the independent acts of third parties who oppose Christian teachings. He contends the Church is liable because it posted news of his baptism on the internet when he did not want that information disclosed. To be sure, the law does protect and enforce the confidentiality of religious communications "made privately and not intended for further disclosure." 12 O.S.2011, § 2505. However, John Doe's baptism was an *299 act, not a communication, and sharing news of this act is part of the religious doctrine of the Presbyterian Church. If a societal need does exist to keep conversion to a religious faith confidential, it would be more appropriate for the Legislature to address this subject by general legislation like § 2505, rather than for this Court to create a new cause of action in response to extraordinary facts.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9879620. Public record. Not legal advice.