Norman Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for the Diocese of Memphis, 363 S.W.3d 436

Plaintiff Norman Redwing alleged the Diocese negligently hired, supervised, and retained Fr. Guthrie and breached fiduciary duties relating to Guthrie’s abuse of minors in the 1970s.
Redwing filed suit in August 2008; the Diocese moved to dismiss under ecclesiastical abstention and statute of limitations defenses.
Trial court denied the motion to dismiss; Court of Appeals held negligent hiring/retention barred by abstention but not negligent supervision, and disagreed on statute of limitations.
Tennessee Supreme Court granted permission to appeal and held the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the negligent hiring/retention and fiduciary claims, and that the statute of limitations defense was premature on the record.
Court emphasized that neutral principles can be used to adjudicate civil claims against religious institutions without resolving doctrinal issues, and that fiduciary claims may proceed if not purely religious in nature.
Case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion; costs taxed to the Diocese.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does ecclesiastical abstention deprive courts of jurisdiction over the claims?	Redwing argues courts have jurisdiction and can adjudicate negligent hiring/retention, supervision, and fiduciary claims without resolving religious doctrine.	Diocese contends abstention bars claims rooted in church doctrine and internal governance.	No absolute bar; courts may adjudicate using neutral principles without resolving doctrinal matters.
Are Redwing's claims time-barred?	Redwing contends claims remain viable under tolling theories (discovery, concealment, estoppel).	Diocese argues action is time-barred given decades elapsed since abuse and discovery rules.	Statute of limitations not conclusively run; dismissal premature; remand for discovery-based analysis.
Can the fiduciary duty claim proceed despite ecclesiastical status?	Fiduciary claim can proceed if not predicated solely on religious duties.	Fiduciary claim should be barred if grounded in religious duties.	Courts may exercise jurisdiction over fiduciary duty claim if not based solely on religious duties.
Do discovery, fraudulent concealment, and equitable estoppel tolling doctrines apply here?	The complaint alleges concealment and misleading conduct that could toll limitations.	Limited record; evidence required to establish tolling.	Claims should not be dismissed on limitations on the current record; further development of facts needed.

Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679 (1872) (religious bodies govern internal matters; civil courts defer)
Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in N. Am., 344 U.S. 94 (1952) (neutral handling of church matters; First Amendment protection)
Presbyterian Church in U.S. v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem’l Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969) (neutral principles for property disputes; avoid doctrinal entanglement)
Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979) (neutral principles; defer to doctrinal determinations when necessary)
Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976) (restricts civil court review of ecclesiastical decisions)
Fahrner v. SW Mfg., Inc., 48 S.W.3d 141 (Tenn. 2001) (equitable estoppel tolls limitations when defendant misleads plaintiff)
Sherrill v. Souder, 325 S.W.3d 584 (Tenn. 2010) (discovery rule includes injury and identity of wrongdoer)
Teeters v. Currey, 518 S.W.2d 512 (Tenn. 1974) (discovery rule; accrual when injury discovered or should have been)
Pero’s Steak & Spaghetti House v. Lee, 90 S.W.3d 614 (Tenn. 2006) (discovery rule nuanced; tolling considerations)
Overstreet v. TRW Commercial Steering Div., 256 S.W.3d 626 (Tenn. 2008) (fiduciary duty framework in tort context)