Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc. v. Waldner, 791 N.W.2d 169

Hutterville Hutterian Brethren, Inc. is a SD nonprofit religious corporation organized to promote the Hutterian Church; its membership, governance, and property are tied to church affiliation.
A 1992 schism split the local Hutterian Church into Kleinsasser‑led (Group I) and Wipf‑led factions; Hutterville Colony remained loyal to Kleinsasser but allowed Wipf supporters to reside there.
The governance dispute began in 2008–2009 as Appellants sought control of Hutterville’s officers and directors to align with Rev. Wipf; Appellees resisted and called meetings.
In August 2009, Appellees allegedly excommunicated Appellants from the local church, creating a contested basis for membership and voting rights.
October 2009 elections were held to fill vacancies, with Appellees electing new officers/directors; the minutes did not account for excommunicated members.
The circuit court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction under the First Amendment, setting up appellate review of whether secular governance can be adjudicated without resolving religious doctrine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether civil courts may decide corporate governance when religious doctrine pervades the dispute.	Wipf argues governance is secular and can be resolved under neutral principles.	Waldner contends church doctrine and membership excommunications control governance, barring secular review.	No; governance cannot be resolved without addressing religious doctrine and membership disputes.
Whether neutral principles of law apply to this church governance dispute.	Appellants suggest a secular, neutral‑principles review of articles/bylaws suffices.	Excommunications and true church affiliation render neutral principles inapplicable.	Neutral principles do not apply where church leadership and excommunications pervade the dispute.
Whether excommunications determine voting membership and control of corporate governance.	Excommunications do not conclusively remove Appellants from all church membership.	Excommunications from the true church/group I determine membership status for governance.	Resolving membership/excommunication is entangled with religious questions and not within judicial reach.
Whether SDCL 15‑6‑12(b)(1) dismissal was proper given First Amendment concerns.	The suit raised secular governance questions, not doctrinal disputes.	The case inherently involved religious doctrine and church discipline.	Dismissal proper; court cannot adjudicate the core religious issues embedded in governance.

Decker ex rel. Decker v. Tschetter Hutterian Brethren, Inc., 594 N.W.2d 357 (S.D. 1999) (neutral principles attempt rejected when church doctrine pervades disputes)
Milivojevich v. Serbian Orthodox Diocese for U.S. and Canada, 426 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1976) (court cannot resolve church doctrine in civil forum)
Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (U.S. 1979) (neutral principles approach requires secular basis; church matters barred)
Hutchison v. Thomas, 789 F.2d 392 (6th Cir. 1986) (reiterates First Amendment limits on church governance adjudication)
Viravonga v. Samakitham, 279 S.W.3d 44 (Ark. 2008) (neutral principles not applicable where religious issues predominate)