-
ULC-chapter11 Universal Life Church - Chapter 11 Filing c.1992 (PDF)
Summary:
This is the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy filing by Universal Life Church of Modesto, California. Documents outline property and assets owned by the church.
-
ULCvsUtah Universal Life Church v. State of Utah c.2002 (HTML)
Summary:
In 2001, Utah’s legislature passed a bill stopping people ordained online or by mail from officiating marriages; this case challenged the constitutionality of that bill. After reaching a US District Court, a precedent setting memorandum was issued affirming the right of Universal Life Church ministers to perform marriages.
-
ULCvsUSA-1974 Universal Life Church v. United States of America c.1974 (HTML)
Summary:
The IRS deducted over $10,000 in income taxes from the Universal Life Church of Modesto, California, and the ULC sued for the return of those funds. The judge ruled in favor of the ULC, solidifying 501(c)(3) tax exempt status for the organization.
-
ULCvsUSA-1997 Universal Life Church v. United States of America c.1997 (HTML)
Summary:
The Universal Life Church of Modesto, California once again sued the IRS for deducting taxes, though this case followed the church’s 1992 bankruptcy filing, which reversed the ULC’s 501(c)(3) status. The court dismissed the case and the IRS was not required to pay back any money..
-
O’Neill & O'Neill – Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Memorandum of Law c.2008 (PDF)
-
Blackwell-vs-Magee Blackwell v. Magee c.1988 (PDF)
Summary:
When Colbert C. Blackwell passed away, the family of his deceased former wife attempted to claim Blackwell’s inheritance. Blackwell’s wife at the time of his death, Nadine Fortenberry Blackwell, maintained her right to the inheritance. The family alleged that the marriage of Blackwell and Fortenberry was not legal because it had been performed by a Universal Life Church minister; the Supreme Court of Mississippi disagreed.
-
Fulton-vs-Vickery Fulton v. Vickery c.1985 (PDF)
Summary:
Lynn Fulton alleged that Charles Vickery and Thomas Fulton had fraudulently induced her to enter into an invalid marriage with Vickery. Plaintiff Fulton was unable to prove that her marriage, which was performed by a ULC minister, was invalid.
-
Ranieri-vs-Ranieri Ranieri v. Ranieri c.1989 (PDF)
Summary:
Plaintiff Rae B. Ranieri sought a divorce settlement from her husband Rocco J. Ranieri; the couple was married by a Universal Life Church minister. Defendant Ranieri attempted to nullify the ULC marriage though a countersuit, however the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
-
Ravenal-vs-Ravenal Ravenal v. Ravenal c.1972 (PDF)
Summary:
Richard S. Ravenal sought an annulment from his marriage with Cathy L. Ravenal. After determining that the ULC was not a valid religious institution, the wedding, which was performed by a ULC minister, was annulled by the court.
-
Robert-vs-Fike Opinion of the California State Board of Equalization c.1988 (PDF)
Summary:
Robert V. Fike appealed a decision by the Franchise Tax Board of California which required him to pay taxes on large donations made to the Universal Life Church of Modesto, California. Fike’s donations were channeled through the ULC to pay for his living expenses. The court discovered that ULC had its tax exempt status retroactively reversed in a earlier ruling and Fike was required to pay back the State of California.
-
Cramer-vs-Virginia Cramer v. Commonwealth of Virginia c.1974 (PDF)
Summary:
Universal Life Church minister Murphy Cramer requested the authority to perform marriages in the State of Virginia. The Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that the ULC had ordained so many ministers that they could not have responsibly selected Cramer; he was therefore denied the right to officiate the sacrament of marriage.
-
Rubino-vs-NYC Rubino v. City of New York c.1984 (PDF)
Summary:
Rev. Anthony Rubino attempted to register as a marriage officiant in New York City and was denied by a City Clerk. The Supreme Court of New York County upheld the Clerk’s decision, determining there was no right to perform marriages implied by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
-
North-Carolina-vs-Lynch-1980 State of North Carolina v. Lynch c. 1980 (PDF)
Summary:
On trial for bigamy, James R. Lynch claimed that his second marriage was legally void because it had been performed by a Universal Life Church minister. The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed Lynch’s argument, denying ULC ministers the right to perform marriages..
-
North-Carolina-vs-Lynch-1985 Lynch v. Universal Life Church c.1985 (PDF)
Summary:
Sandra Lynch had her wedding declared invalid, because it had been performed by a Universal Life Church minister; she subsequently sued the ULC for fraud. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s finding, determining that the ULC was not guilty of defrauding Lynch..
-
Kentucky-Opinion Opinion of the Attorney General of Kentucky c.1978 (PDF)
Summary:
Marriages can be performed by any minister of the gospel, including ministers of the Universal Life Church.
-
Tennessee-Opinion-1 Opinion of the Attorney General of Tennessee – 1 c.1997 (PDF)
Summary:
Marriages performed by anyone that does not meet the statutory requirements of the state can be found void.
-
Tennessee-Opinion-2 Tennessee Opinion of the Attorney General – 2 c.1997 (PDF)
Summary:
Universal Life Church ministers do not necessarily meet the statutory requirements of the state and are not automatically qualified to perform marriages.
-
Texas-Opinion Opinion of the Attorney General of Texas c.2002 (PDF)
Summary:
Universal Life Church ministers that wish to offer counseling services are not automatically exempt from registering with the state, though their ministerial practices may qualify them as exempt.
-
South-Carolina-Opinion-1971 Opinion of the Attorney General of South Carolina c.1971 (PDF)
Summary:
A minister of any religious organization, including the Universal Life Church, is entitled to solemnize marriages.
-
South-Carolina-Opinion-1973 Opinion of the Attorney General of South Carolina c.1973 (PDF)
Summary:
As long as a minister is able to meet the statutory requirements of the state, they are qualified to solemnize marriages.
