Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
GENERAL COUNCIL ON FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION, UNITED METHODIST CHURCH v. CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY (BARR et al., REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST), 1978 — 439 U.S. 1355 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
GENERAL COUNCIL ON FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION, UNITED METHODIST CHURCH v. CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY (BARR et al., REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST)
439 U.S. 1355·Supreme Court of the United States·1978
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
GENERAL COUNCIL ON FINANCE & ADMINISTRATION, UNITED METHODIST CHURCH v. CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY (BARR et al., REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST)
No. A-200.
Decided August 24, 1978
[MAJORITY — Mr. Justice Rehnquist, Circuit Justice.]
Mr. Justice Rehnquist, Circuit Justice.
Applicant requests that proceedings in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego in which it is a defendant be stayed as to it pending consideration by this Court of its petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of that court filed March 20, 1978. I have decided to grant a temporary stay of the proceedings against applicant pending receipt and my consideration of a response to the application.
Applicant has, in my opinion, inexcusably delayed the filing of its application for a stay. The Supreme Court of the State of California denied applicant’s petition for hearing on its request for a writ of mandate on July 27, 1978. On August 3, 1978, the Superior Court granted applicant 30 days from July 27, 1978, until August 28, in which to plead, but denied any additional stay of the proceedings. Applicant did not seek any further stay of the proceedings from either the California Court of Appeal or the California Supreme Court. Nevertheless, it did not file its application for a stay in this Court until August 22, nearly three weeks after the Superior Court’s order and only six days before it was required to plead.
It is only because a delay of a few days will have virtually no effect on the progress of the state-court proceedings that I have decided to grant this temporary stay. It should be noted, however, that in deciding whether to grant or deny any further relief of this nature beyond that provided in this order, I shall take into consideration the above-described delay on the applicant’s part.