The court noted that "the charities have articulated a valid theory that will support reformation if established by clear and convincing evidence."

Case demonstrates that the low rates of return on such investments may enable churches to obtain a court order authorizing a broader range of investment options.

Court fairly considered all of the evidence presented at trial and, despite its harsh rhetoric, imposed a sentence significantly under the maximum aggregate term that defendant faced.

Case demonstrates that the host organization may be legally responsible for injuries that occur.

Case illustrates the reluctance of the civil courts to resolve internal church disputes involving the discipline or dismissal of members.

Sexual misconduct exclusions in church insurance policies may apply even though a church is being sued on the basis of vicarious liability, negligence, or some other form of "indirect" liability.

Churches that run food pantries need to ensure that beneficiaries are not obtaining food and then selling their food stamps to raise money for themselves.

The court concluded that church board members are not personally liable for breach of contract, since "whenever a corporation makes a contract, it is the contract of the legal entity … and not the contract of the individual members."

Court ruled that it was not barred by the "ministerial exception" and "ecclesiastical abstention doctrine" from resolving a claim by a pastor that his church had failed to pay him the salary and benefits to which they had contractually agreed.

The court concluded if the application of the ministerial exception is obvious from the face of a civil lawsuit, then a pre-discovery motion to dismiss is appropriate.

Court concluded that the mosque's bylaws constitute a contract between it and plaintiffs.