Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of: Difference between revisions

From The Satanic Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
No edit summary
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Lawsuits
  | title=Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of ("Satanic Temple I")
  | image=
  | caption=
  | filedate=
  | jurisdiction=
  | plaintiff=The Satanic Temple Inc.
  | defendant=
  | intervenor=N/A
  | state=
  | case=0:19-cv-01122-WMW-JFD
  | result=
  | appeal1=N/A
  | appeal2=N/A
  | appeal3=N/A
  | finalresult=
}}
{{Lawsuits
  | title=Satanic Temple, Inc v. Belle Plaine, City of ("Satanic Temple II")
  | image=
  | caption=
  | filedate=
  | jurisdiction=
  | plaintiff=The Satanic Temple Inc.
  | defendant=
  | intervenor=N/A
  | state=
  | case=0:2021cv00336
  | result=
  | appeal1=N/A
  | appeal2=N/A
  | appeal3=N/A
  | finalresult=
}}
[http://www.belleplaineherald.com/news/judge-dismisses-majority-of-claims-in-satanic-temple-lawsuit/article_b3fd3348-d8bd-11ea-a201-7f47d8a4cb85.html Judge Dismisses Majority of Claims in Satanic Temple Lawsuit]
[http://www.belleplaineherald.com/news/judge-dismisses-majority-of-claims-in-satanic-temple-lawsuit/article_b3fd3348-d8bd-11ea-a201-7f47d8a4cb85.html Judge Dismisses Majority of Claims in Satanic Temple Lawsuit]



Revision as of 04:58, 3 December 2021


Satanic Temple, The v. Belle Plaine, City of ("Satanic Temple I")
Filing Date
Original Jurisdiction
Plaintiff The Satanic Temple Inc.
Defendant
Intervenor N/A
State
Case# 0:19-cv-01122-WMW-JFD
Original Result
First Appeal N/A
Second Appeal N/A
Final Result

Satanic Temple, Inc v. Belle Plaine, City of ("Satanic Temple II")
Filing Date
Original Jurisdiction
Plaintiff The Satanic Temple Inc.
Defendant
Intervenor N/A
State
Case# 0:2021cv00336
Original Result
First Appeal N/A
Second Appeal N/A
Final Result

Judge Dismisses Majority of Claims in Satanic Temple Lawsuit

Nine out of 10 claims the Satanic temple made against the city of Belle Plaine in a lawsuit over a whether one of their monuments could be erected in Veteran's Park have been dismissed.
U.S. Judge Wilhelmina Wright threw out the Temple's claims that the city's actions violated their free speech and exercise of religion.
The remaining claim alleges that the city more or less breached a contract when they rescinded a permit allowing the monument.
The Temple's attorney Matt Kezhaya told the Star Tribune that he plans to determine which of the dismissed claims can be raised again in a refiled complaint.