Tilton v. Marshall

justification virtually every word

adopted rules order to sustain their validi- would, effect, ty. “impose require- This findings § [2001.033] ment under for detailed Nothing of fact and conclusions of law.” Id. language in the of section 2001.033hints that Legislature impose intended to such an requirement. unworkable Because I believe that the Board substan- tially complied justification with the reasoned requirement, portion from that dissent judgment invalidating

the Court’s Rule 1000. I concur in the remainder of the Court’s judgment. (individually

Robert TILTON and sued as allegedly Ministries), Robert Tilton d/b/a Center, Faith Word of World Outreach (a corporation),

Inc. dissolved Word of Faith World Outreach Center Church al., Relators,

et

The Honorable John McClellan

MARSHALL, Judge,

Respondent. No. 94-1233. Supreme Court of Texas.

Argued March 1995. July Decided emo- intentional infliction of

tiffs’ claims of claims, conspiracy and related tional distress certain ordering production and in irrelevant, are therefore we documents which of mandamus. We conditionally grant a writ judge grant against writ the trial decline to claims refusing to dismiss to fraud. conspiracy as related of fraud

FACTS underlying involves claims real suit High, Patsy High,

parties in Curtis interest Johnson, Mary Turk and Elizabeth Andrea Til- (collectively, “plaintiffs”) against Robert ton, Center Word of Faith World Outreach Church, Inc., of Faith World Out- and Word “Tilton”). (collectively, reach Center Church principal pastor of Word Tilton is now near Faith World Outreach Center Church Wellenberger, B. Rhonda Johnson Robert Dallas, 1993, plaintiffs In sued Texas. June Dallas, Byrd, Taylor, M. for Relators. David church entities Tilton and the two named Bowen, OK, Tulsa, defendants, Darrell Min- alleging Dana C. along several other with Dallas, ter, Richardson, Gary Respon- fraud, L. infliction of conspiracy, and intentional dent. distress.2 emotional through of Tilton Plaintiffs became aware PHILLIPS, Justice, Chief delivered years ago. programs about nine his television opinion Rehearing of the Court on Motion for custody Patsy High, distraught losing portions II as to Sections and III and children, that Tilton her became convinced GONZALEZ, HECHT, I, Section in which help An avid viewer could her recover them. SPECTOR, OWEN, Justices, ABBOTT, and broadcasts, she and her husband of Tilton’s join plurality opinion and a as to the requests, do- prayer him written Curtis sent remaining portions of Section I in which him, $15,000 and eventu- more than nated SPECTOR, OWEN, ABBOTT, Justices, and Johnson, joined physically ally his church. join. recipient, also contributed disabled welfare rehearing in grant relators’ motion for We Tilton, requests, financially prayer made opinions part prior and withdraw our and of his joined his church as a result judgment, following opin- and substitute the began watching programs. Turk television place.1 in its ion broadcasts, particularly evangelistic Tilton’s healing, caring for rights, about faith while Based on their constitutional rela- those ailing Suffering herself from complain its her husband. tors that the trial court abused causes, physical pain of unknown refusing to dismiss the claims of severe discretion suit, or, “prayer line” to make underlying at Turk contacted Tilton’s in the $1,000 least, church. Tilton sent ordering production certain donation to his “prayer mailings, along with a protected Because we her various allegedly documents. body that parts of her place its cloth” to on the conclude that the trial court has abused mail- pain healing. These refusing plain- were or needed discretion in to dismiss alleged Petition also opinion First Amended 1. and III of this constitute Plaintiffs' Sections II Court, negligent dis infliction of emotional claims for opinion along por- with those tress, granted Motion but trial court I which Gonzalez and tions of section in Justices Summary Judgment respect with to those join. remaining portions of section I Hecht Kerr, Boyles v. 855 S.W.2d causes of action. See plurality opinion. constitute a (Tex. 1993). ings hearings, personally deposition. stated that Tilton had anoint- After two the trial power. prayer requiring ed the cloth with convalescent court an order Tilton to issued nearly produce tithing Turk later donated more to Til- “on these records or before $500 ” ton, December, forgoing pain. day medical treatment for her the 1st 1994.... worse, pain grew When her Turk consulted a terminally emergency mo

doctor and discovered she was ill Tilton then filed an deceased, petition with rectal cancer. Turk is now tion for leave to file for writ of prohibition and Dr. Toni R. Turk and Vicki Crenshaw or writ of mandamus with it, prosecuting requested In Tilton her claims on behalf of her Court.4 the Court directing “issue a writ of mandamus trial [the estate. ... vacate ... court] [its] reverse and allege, among things, Plaintiffs other compelling production order ... represented “through ... televised records; tithing and issue a writ ... direct .. n . line, programs, telephone] prayer [a ing trial ... no further [the court] exercise mailings, including ... those viewed case, jurisdiction except over this to enter an Plaintiffs,” received called the dismissing against” order all claims Tilton. prayer “monetary line and made a vow or granted stayed both the trial We leave monetary donation to Til- mail[ed] Robert production proceedings court’s order and all prayer request ton Ministries” with a includ- underlying pending suit our decision. ed, read, personally actually “Tilton will pray requests touch and of over each these argues Tilton that the trial court abused thereby, making and that the one the vow by refusing to the un- its discretion dismiss request request- and will is receive whatever derlying by ordering produc- action and the 3 ed.” Plaintiffs claim that Tilton made these tithing tion of his He claims that records. representations in and other bad faith and Constitution, the Texas the United States representations were fraudu- both Constitution, Religious Free- and the federal lent and intentional infliction of emotional (“RFRA”), 42 dom Restoration Act of 1993 distress. 1993),5 §§ (Supp. U.S.C. 2000bb-2000bb-4 V During discovery, plaintiffs against him served Tilton bar causes of action subpoena requesting, prohibit ordering with a tecum and the trial court from duces documents, among identify- produce tithing other him to his records. Plaintiffs “[r]ecords ing respond the entities charities that Robert that neither the trial court’s discov- and/or (7) during ery Tilton has nor un- tithed to the seven order its refusal to dismiss the years preceding request, derlying justify- next this suit is an abuse of discretion quash ing interlocutory amount thereof.” Tilton moved to relief. mailings allegedly typical plain- prohibition to

3.In of the ones 4. A writ of directs lower court states, doing received, refrain from some act while a writ of among things: tiffs other court to do some mandamus commands lower your going I ... When receive sheet I am to principles act. The same control the use of both blessing take it and touch it command a when, urges the writs as Tilton Court in offering upon you case, the tithe and have they are invoked to correct the unlawful God_ given place blessing ... assumption jurisdiction by to I will an inferior court. Helicopters Wittig, upon your gift See Ltd. v. 876 of God’s Word of faith to Canadian 304, (Tex. 1994). S.W.2d 12 309 n. going lay my your Him.... I am to hands on my REQUESTS BEST and release faith for constitutionality 5. We note that the of the RFRA you. going pray prophesy I am as the Boerne, recently upheld City was in Flores v. Spirit of God directs me in that moment for (5th Cir.1996), petition cert. 73 F.3d 1352 for you_ your requests Send back to me. En- 25, 1996) (U.S. filed, 65 U.S.L.W. 3017 June you’ve your close the four seeds held in hand. (No. 95-2074). deter Other courts have also prayed you The seeds that I’ve have now pursuant mined that the RFRA is constitutional again. They touched and I will touch them Congress’s powers § enforcement under 5 of your will become miracle link for the miracle DOC, the Fourteenth Amendment. See Sasnett v. you your harvest desire to have in life.... (W.D.Wis.1995); F.Supp. Belgard 891 1305 v. Angels pray speak very will Word that Hawaii, 510, (D.Haw.1995); F.Supp. 883 516-17 your requests. Miller, 573, hearken to over I will let the (Wis.App. State v. 538 N.W.2d 577 1995, filed). Spirit guide your petition party of God me as I do. Rush for review No raises challenge requests today! here. to me a constitutional RFRA

677 ... acts in tort for secular may be held liable I. recog cases courts will appropriate [and] A. reli liability acts that are tort even for nize I, 6 of the motivated.”); Article Section While Murphy v. Interna giously First Amendment and the Texas Constitution Soc’y Krishna Consciousness tional afford Inc., 842, to the United States Constitution 571 409 Mass. England, New of reli denied, to the free exercise protection (1991), broad 340, 502 U.S. cert. N.E.2d (1991) claims necessarily bar all gion, do not 865, 191, 116 L.Ed.2d 112 S.Ct. The may touch on conduct. which (noting freedom to act on that the commentary interpretive authors of the enjoy protection as does not the same beliefs pro provision of the Texas Constitution principles); certain the freedom to believe tecting worship freedom of state Holy Spirit Ass’n Meroni Unifica 200, Christianity, 119 A.D.2d tion World religion go so exercise of does not the free 174, (N.Y.App.Div.1986) 506 N.Y.S.2d far as to be inclusive of actions which (“[A] intention may church be held liable for duties or subversive of in violation of social officers or on behalf of its al tortious conduct Although freedom to believe good order. members, out if that conduct is carried absolute, even may freedom of be said to be religious practices.”). part of the church’s under conduct is not conduct even subject regula religious guise remains impli suit Thus when a society. protection tion rights, the a defendant’s free exercise cates Const, I, the First Amendment interp. commentary § defendant assert art. Tex. (Vernon 1984); Miller, to the claims an affirmative defense see also Lide v. 573 as Paul v. Bible (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana against him. See Watchtower 614-15 Inc., writ). York, Soc’y New 819 F.2d federal constitution simi & Tract no (9th denied, Cir.1987), cert. 484 U.S. larly distinguishes freedom to between the (1987); believe, absolute, 926,108 98 L.Ed.2d 249 see and the freedom to S.Ct. which Sullivan, act, 376 subject regulation for also New York Times Co. v. which “remains 710, 727, 254, 282-83, 11 society.” 84 protection of Cantwell v. Con U.S. S.Ct. the Bush, necticut, (1964); 296, 303-04, 900, 69 L.Ed.2d 686 Carrieri v. 310 U.S. 60 S.Ct. (1966); (1940).6 536, 132, 903, 137 419 P.2d 84 L.Ed. 1213 The Free Exer Wash.2d Inc., Newspapers, clergy has or McNamara v. Freedom cise Clause never immunized 901, (Tex.App.-Corpus alleging churches from all causes of action 802 S.W.2d 904 denied). 1991, seeking an One tortious conduct. See Van Schaick v. Church Christi writ Inc., facially from a neu Scientology California, exemption 535 based on faith of of statute, 1125, (D.Mass.1982); tral, regulation, generally applicable F.Supp. 1142 see also Holy principle must first demon Spirit Molko v. Ass’n the or common law for Unifica 1092, application that the there Christianity, 46 strate to the court tion World Cal.3d of (1988), 122, 133, 46, substantially or her free of would burden his Cal.Rptr. 252 762 P.2d 57 RFRA, denied, 2110, 1084, religion. 42 U.S.C. exercise of See cert. 490 U.S. 109 S.Ct. Verner, (1989) 2000bb-1; § 374 (“[R]eligious groups v. U.S. 104 L.Ed.2d 670 Sherbert government, persuasively law other argued oAer of Ae 6. Because Tilton has not branches federal, jurisdictions, application provisions state and constitutional a of the of the different I, including legal Aeory, and fundamental values and Article Section 6 as First Amendment Tucci, policy. parte religion, justice SeeEx 859 pertain we as- and social to the free exercise of C.J., 1, (Tex.1993) (Phillips, deciding con- 18 n. 3 that the state and federal sume without curring). adAess guarantees Tffton's briefs to this Court are coextensive with re- free exercise interesting factors. While spect particular almost none of these to his claims. The construction occurring religion developments in state provision of the Constitution de- of Texas see, e.g., jurisActions, Neil language pends upon such the of the clauses in oAer factors as McCabe, itself, Religion and Federal Clauses: provision purpose, the The State its constitutional Kind, written, Degree 5 which it was the St. historical context in Thomas Differences of ratifiers, (1992), appli- we are reluctant to decide L.Rev. 49 the framers and the intention of decisions, scope important of Ae Texas as Ae prior judicial the relation of issue as cation in guarantee under exercise provision parts Constitution’s free to other of the Constitution the whole, understanding Aese circumstances. as a the of and the law 678 freedom”).

398, 403, 1790, 1793, regard religious 83 10 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 965 To establish (1963); 716, People Woody, v. 61 Cal.2d 40 fraud, plaintiff ordinarily prove, must 69,394 813, (1964); Cal.Rptr. P.2d 816 TRIBE, among things, other that the defendant has 14-12, § at American Constitutional Law See, representation. e.g., amade false Stone (2d 1988). made, showing 1242 If ed. 183, Lawyers Corp., Title Ins. 554 S.W.2d government the must show to court that (Tex.1977). 185 But while courts have the granting exemption significantly capacity inquire sincerity into the of a compelling hinder a state interest. See beliefs, person’s pro the First Amendment RFRA, 2000bb-l; Sherbert, § 42 U.S.C. 374 determining veracity hibits courts from 403, 1793; Tribe, supra, U.S. at 83 S.Ct. at Ballard, religious of tenets. United States v. § 14-12 at 1242. 78, 86, 882, 886, 322 64 U.S. S.Ct. 88 L.Ed. (1944). Hence, Before a court can 1148 no claim of fraud determine whether substantially regulation a law or if representation burdens be made it rests on a of rights, gen one’s free exercise the individual doctrine or belief—even insincere erally preponderance must establish Schaick, ly F.Supp. made. See Van 535 at evidence the beliefs avowed are not 1142-43; Molko, 122, Cal.Rptr. 252 762 P.2d nature, only religious sincerely but also 58; v. Church Scientolo Christofferson See, e.g., Maynard, held. Mosier v. 937 F.2d Portland, 203, 577, gy Or.App. 57 644 P.2d (10th 1521, Cir.1991); 1526 Philbrook v. An denied, (1982), 1206, cert. 459 U.S. 103 (2nd Educ., 476, sonia Bd. 757 F.2d (1983). 1196, S.Ct. 75 L.Ed.2d 439 For ex Cir.1985), 60, 367, aff'd, 479 U.S. 107 S.Ct. 93 ample, probably most courts would hold (1986); L.Ed.2d 305 v. Common Africa a claim of fraud is not actionable if based 1025, Pennsylvania, wealth 662 F.2d that, upon representation exchange (3rd Cir.1981), denied, 1029-30 cert. 456 U.S. contribution, monetary will cure a sick (1982); 102 S.Ct. 72 L.Ed.2d 165 long representa donor’s illness. As Alabama and Coushatta Tribes Texas v. forming tion of the fraud claim is a basis Dist., Big Sandy Trustees Ind. Sch. belief, it doctrine or is constitution (E.D.Tex.1993), F.Supp. re See, ally judicial protected inquiry. (5th manded, Cir.1994); Woody, 20 F.3d 469 e.g., Christofferson, 644 at 605. P.2d 820-21; Note, Cal.Rptr. 394 P.2d at Religion: Burdens on the Free Exercise A Consequently, religious objec Alternative, Subjective 102 Harv.L.Rev. sincerity tor’s is irrelevant when a claim of (1989).7 1258, 1270 solely on a of fraud is based statement reli gious doctrine or belief. Anderson v. See B. God, 1400, F.Supp. Worldwide Church 661 of Although general these rules have (D.Minn.1987); Schaick, Van 535 1401 ly rights to balance the of served claimants F.Supp. conducting at 1134-35. To avoid freedom, against religious they a defense of trials,” “heresy may adjudicate courts not alleged. do not suffice in cases where fraud is falsity religious truth or of doctrines or be Annotation, generally, Stephens, See Free Weiss, Privilege, liefs. Posture and Pro See Religion Exercise First Amend Clause of of Law, Religion tection: in the 73 L.J. Liability, Yale ment as to Tort 93 AL.R. Defense (1964). (1989) 593, Supreme has 607 As Court (noting for “[a]etions 754 Fed. especially explained: ... fraud raise delicate issues with Supreme (1981)(“petitioner of the L.Ed.2d terminated his 7. The Court United States has 624 suggested inquiry likewise that an into the sinc- of an honest conviction that such work because erity religious proper of a claimant's beliefs is religion”); v. work was forbidden his Frazee where free exercise are asserted. See Wis- Sec., 829, Dept. Employment Illinois 489 U.S. of Yoder, 205, 235, 1526, consin v. 406 U.S. 92 S.Ct. 1514, 1517, L.Ed.2d 914 109 S.Ct. 103 (1972) ("the 32 L.Ed.2d 15 Amish in this (1989) (“nor difficulty do we underestimate the convincingly case have ty demonstrated the sinceri- distinguishing religious between and secular beliefs”); religious of their Thomas v. Review determining pro convictions and in whether Division, Employment Bd. Indiana Sec. held”). sincerely is fessed belief 1425, 1431, 715-16, U.S. 101 S.Ct. remand, “I stating do rather than heresy, is commits tions knows no “The law may con- religious leaders be dogma, the estab not doubt support of no ted to the Jones, making representa- for false 13 victed of fraud of no sect.” Watson lishment (1871)].... experi- than faith L.Ed. 666 tions on matters other [20 Wall. ence, represents Heresy foreign example are to our Constitu as for one trials they a church may being cannot used to construct tion. Men believe funds are may put proof being personal They they not be used prove. when fact beliefs. Re fact must religious Although doctrines or the trier of purposes.”) of their as life ligious experiences prom- which are as real Tilton made these whether determine incomprehensible them, to oth to some be perform and faded to ises they may beyond fact that ers. Yet the may satisfy falsity element of a fraud does not mean that the ken of mortals no intention by proving that Tilton had claim suspect before the law.... can be made touching, praying reading, personally of the Constitution were The Fathers requests at the time he prayer views of the varied and extreme unaware Stanley Boot do so. See T.O. said he would sects, of dis religious of the violence Paso, 218, 222 v. Bank El Co. them, lack of agreement among and of the (Tex.1992). religious creed on which all men one involves group of claims The second agree. They fashioned a charter of allegedly fraudulent and deceitful envisaged government which the widest religious or be representations of doctrine possible conflicting toleration of views. con representations, plaintiffs lief. These was made no Man’s relation to his God tend, nor religiously motivated were neither granted of the state. He was concern any sincere belief when based on right worship pleased and to as he them, therefore fall outside Tilton made verity answer to no man for the of his Amendment. For protection of the First religious views. instance, re plaintiffs complain of Tilton’s Ballard, 86-87, at 886- 322 U.S. at 64 S.Ct. funds, repeatedly emphasize quests for which Therefore, falsity because the truth or adherents to tithe. that the Bible commands religious representation beyond the is Bible, quotes Til- Citing numerous from the judicial sincerity scope inquiry, of the mailing typical of the ones ton states in a making representation person such a is irrel- plaintiffs received: religious representation evant when the Holy Spirit prompting me to I feel the forms the basis of a fraud claim. Whether challenge you in the name of Jesus to send belief the statement doctrine or day your right now.... This is $100 honestly faith of no is made bad your prove miracle.... When God moment, falsity proved. because cannot be Him, prove says prove it’s time to you Him now challenge prove Him.

C. offering into the work to seed with $100 representations plain which help carry this anointed of God and us into two tiffs base their fraud claims fall Elijah ministry to the four corners of the alleged categories. concerns Tilton’s One said, “Freely you have earth.... Jesus perform cer representations that he would NTV)_ (Mt. received, freely give” 10:8 personally reading, touch tain concrete acts: Bible, and women through All men ing, praying plaintiffs’ prayer re and by giving of- consistently worshipped God quests. The fraud claims based on these gifts. always ferings and sacrificial infringe upon alleged representations do not and He Himself in their lives manifested rights. They are Tilton’s constitutional worship you you do the same for when will religious doctrine based not on statements of offerings.... him with sacrificial belief, alleged promises to or on Tilton’s but Ballard, sincerely, repre- such or not made perform particular acts. See 322 Whether (Jackson, J., religious doc- 95, statements of sentations are 64 S.Ct. at 890 U.S. See, e.g., v. in United States of fraud trine or belief. dissentingXarguing for dismissal 850, 859, 163, 176, Seeger, 380 85 S.Ct. religious representa- U.S. dictment for insincere (1965) (indicating plaintiffs may irrepa- 13 L.Ed.2d 733 that beliefs their fraud claims base religious if upon power being, rably rights. “based or violate Tilton’s constitutional identify upon a faith to which all else is subor- The trial court must those state- upon ultimately upon plaintiffs’ dinate or which all else is ments which fraud claims are such, based, ones, dependent”). jury any, As no can be al- determine which if involve beliefs, falsity, lowed to determine their truth or doctrines or and ensure that task, of fact “[w]hen triers of fact undertake that trier does hear evidence re- Ballard, garding pass veracity. enter forbidden domain.” them or on their 87, 322 U.S. at 64 S.Ct. at 887. E.

D. beyond judicial Because it is in Hecht, For JustiCes quiry plaintiffs’ prayers Gonzalez whether would have justified relief is because some of prom been answered had Tilton fulfilled his appear just fraud claims on be based such touch, read, pray ises to over their tithes representations doctrine belief prayer requests, plaintiffs’ damages, by Tilton. We cannot conclude that Tilton’s any, may compensation not include for their by constitutional will be violated allegedly Ordinarily, prayers. unanswered suit, however, because we cannot determine damages the measure of in a fraud ease is exactly on this abbreviated record which of plaintiffs the actual amount of the loss that representations plaintiffs rely will directly proximately results from the upon prove their claims fraud. The See, e.g., defendant’s fraudulent conduct. only copy record before us includes Inc., Pipe Tubing, v. P.K. Holmes & petition excerpts most recent 530, (Tex.App.-Houston [1st S.W.2d transcripts depositions. of their As far 1993, writ); no & Partners v. Sun Dist.] C C tell, as we can Tilton has far from exhausted Co., Exploration and Prod. 783 S.W.2d opportunities identify alleged his mis denied); (Tex.App.-Dallas 718-19 writ representations plaintiffs ground on which County Wooldridge, Duval Ranch Co. apparently their claims. He has not served (Tex.App.-Austin no interrogatories asking any pre with writ). case, therefore, plaintiffs may In this cisely which statements their fraud claims Tilton, recover their donations to to upon, specially excepted are based nor has he gether pecuniary loss with other suffered plaintiffs’ petition. dynamic nature of consequence upon as a of their reliance his process imprudent the trial makes it for us to misrepresentations.8 Plaintiffs also structure the trial based on such an abbrevi exemplary damages. generally, seek See plaintiffs’ counsel at oral Edgar ated record. While Sales, & Texas ToRts and Remedies argument us made several statements (1995) before (“Exemplary damages § 44.04[2][b] present proceed intent to on indicated may usually ... the success recovered theories, inappropriate we are loath to sub ful claimant in an action for common-law factually comments for a devel stitute these fraud.”). circumstances, however, Under no Hence, oped record. we do not hold that the may compensate plaintiffs trial court trial court has erred such extent allegedly prayers. unfulfilled by extraordinary justified. correction writ is F.

Nevertheless, a failure we caution that carefully deny each also Tilton the relief he the trial court to consider We alleged misrepresentations plaintiffs’ conspiracy seeks from claims as which might According “compensatory pray generally, to Justice for them be Hecht, Justice Hecht plaintiffs damages correct. But if can convince the trier cannot be recovered because there is no they specifically way plaintiffs relied on Tilton's determine the value of what of fact that to read, touch, pray promises personally to and received" since Tilton conferred some benefit on requests by generally. prayers plaintiffs praying their tithes and and would for them at over Infra that, summary judg- any but for -. Were the evidence in the not have contributed to him general prayers solely plaintiffs would be irrele- ment record that donated to Til- value of Tilton’s representations because of his that he would vant. ton

681 religious regard at to 621. With conspiracy, gener- fraud. Civil S.W.2d relate to that no consci- representations, we conclude ally a of more combination two or defined a deter- fact make such entious finder would persons accomplish purpose, to an unlawful considering ob- the mination without at least purpose by to a lawful unlaw- accomplish or falsity means, jective truth or of the defendants’ ful called a tort. might be derivative Chevrolet, beliefs, evidentiary Inc., regardless exclu- of what Timmers 592 See Carroll v. (Tex.1979). attempted. is, limiting or were That sions instructions S.W.2d 925 a defen- all, extremity outrageousness the and conspiracy on After liability depends dant’s for is, any cir- underlying representation under almost of a participation some tort cumstance, miti- aggravated by being false or to plaintiff which the seeks hold at least one being consciously gated by hable. true. Whether of the named defendants See id. As inevitably unconsciously, result, premise would analyze a not the court’s we do trial of inform the trier of fact’s consideration plaintiffs’ causes of action refusal to dismiss outrageousness religious representation. from its of a conspiracy separately refusal to any trier of expect too much to ask of If the We would their other causes action. dismiss disregard any fact to consideration trial not abuse its court did discretion falsity religious representation plaintiffs’ all of fraud truth or of a refusing to dismiss outrageous claims, then, deciding it is and priori, it did not its when whether abuse metaphy- might Such a be refusing to dismiss claims of extreme. demand discretion sically possible, practically it would be conspiracy generally, related to fraud. See but Edgak 3.02[2], impossible. danger § that the trier of fact supra, Sales, & subconsciously weigh representa-

would against preconceived notions of II. tions his own struggling falsity, truth and while even Tilton next seeks relief the trial equation, keep falsity truth out of the and to dismiss court’s refusal claims constitutional unacceptable creates an risk of infliction of emotional intentional distress. impingement. claims, plaintiffs allege As with their fraud infliction Tilton’s intentional of emotion “read, pray” issue While the touch and 1) making al two forms: closer, distress took insinc perhaps similarly conclude we 2) religious representations, ere and breach alleged con- consideration of whether read, touch, ing promises pray in- outrageous duct was would extreme prayer requests. Twy tithes and See evitably fact find- entail an evaluation (Tex. Twyman, man v. 855 S.W.2d veracity religious er of the truth of those 1993). Although plaintiffs we have allowed espoused by beliefs Tilton. Because the proceed claims on their fraud once nar strictly prohibits entry First Amendment read, promises Ballard, rowed to include domain,” into this “forbidden see touch pray, we conclude that such a 86-87, 886-87, at the trial U.S. 64 S.Ct. permit distinction is not available to claims of court therefore abused its discretion infliction of intentional emotional distress. dismissing all claims for inten- infliction distress. tional of emotional

Resolving has in whether Tilton course, not, tentionally granting inflicted emotional distress We are merely making because through mandamus relief to Tilton we insincere inevitably prevail cer representations conclude that cannot require tain claims. is an “extraordi inquiry into whether beliefs Mandamus remedy, nary” for “manifest and true or false. One the elements that reserved plaintiff prove urgent necessity,” Holloway v. Court must establish intentional Fifth (Tex.1989), Appeals, 767 infliction of emotional distress is that character, heavy outrageous in and will not issue relator satisfies conduct was “so unless circum degree, go beyond establishing “compelling so as to all burden of extreme Tex.R.App.P. 121(a)(2)(D); decency, Ca possible regard and to stances.” See bounds atrocious, utterly Wittig, Helicopters, ed as in a nadian Ltd. intolerable (Tex.1994); Twyman, v. Pack- community.” Walker civilized See 855 S.W.2d (Tex.1992). er, 833, cy 827 S.W.2d 842 n. 9 Un- claims as relate to intentional inflic- Walker, seeking der a relator mandamus tion of emotional distress. respondent must show that either failed to grant therefore We Tilton’s motion for perform legal duty or clear committed a mandamus, petition to leave file the discretion; legal clear abuse that relator’s conditionally grant part pursuant the writ in inadequate; peti- remedies are and that the Appellate Texas Rule Procedure 122. important tion raises issues the state’s If plaintiffs’ the trial court fails to dismiss the

jurisprudence. Id. at 840-41 and 839 n. 7. claims for infliction intentional of emotional claims, conspiracy distress and related high proof We hold that this burden of is jurisdiction any exercises further over those met in this case as to the trial court’s refusal them, except claims to dismiss the writ will to dismiss claims for intentional issue. infliction of petition emotional distress. The important

raises issues related to constitu- protections by tional III. afforded the First an appeal Amendment which cannot ade- We now consider Tilton’s contention Adjudication quately protect. of the claims mandamus should also issue because the trial for intentional infliction of emotional distress compelled production tithing court of his necessarily require inquiry would into the records. Our dismissal of all but Tilton’s falsity truth or beliefs that is promised per- fraud claims as to but not Ballard, by forbidden the Constitution. See highly formed has conduct rendered these 86-87, 322 U.S. at 64 S.Ct. at 886-87. The personal documents irrelevant. Because we itself, therefore, merely trial and not that, hold under the circumstances of this imposition judgment, of an adverse case, justified mandamus relief is on that rights. violate relator’s constitutional alone, argu- Cf. need not basis we reach Tilton’s Biard, Cauwenberghe Van 486 U.S. rights ment that the First Amendment 526-27, 1945, 1951-52, 108 S.Ct. 100 L.Ed.2d religion and free exercise of freedom of asso- (unanimous (1988) stating Court that “in discovery.9 ciation shield these records process the context of due restrictions on the Litigants “may discovery regarding obtain jurisdiction, personal exercise of this Court subject any matter which is relevant to mat- recognized has the individual interest ter in pending action whether it relates protected being subject is in ‘not to the bind- party seeking claim or defense ing judgments of a forum [the with which discovery or the claim or defense meaningful defendant] has established no 166b(2)(a). party.” Til- other Tex.R.Civ.P. ’ ” “contacts, ties, relations,” citing Burger tithing potentially ton’s records are not even Rudzewicz, King Corp. v. U.S. only remaining relevant to the issue (1985), S.Ct. 85 L.Ed.2d 528 and that case, by fraud whether Tilton committed right subject binding “the not to be to a read, promising failing touch then judgment may effectively fol- vindicated pray requests. plaintiffs’ prayer lowing judgment”). final While mandamus every appropriate not be case Mandamus will lie to correct a discovery discovery impaired, which constitutional we error order discretion, justified believe that mandamus relief is un- constitutes a clear abuse of grant aggrieved party adequate remedy der these facts. Because we Tilton the has no ordinary appeal. relief he seeks from intentional National Tank Co. v. Brotherton, (Tex.1993). claims, infliction of emotional distress we 851 S.W.2d grant plaintiffs’ conspira- discovery mandating likewise relief from A order the disclosure er, Obviously, judgment changed point Tilton's second of error on because our has because response rehearing, tithing rehearing argues in has not had the to the motion for that "Reverend Tilton’s argue opportunity we subject are not relevant to the matter in records compel should the trial court to vacate its discov- action,” pending grounds, albeit on other we ery tithing order because his records are irrele- sufficiently raised so as to believe issue only remaining vant to the claim—fraud related justify considering opinion. our it in this read, promises pray. Howev- touch

683 materiality in to the matters normally relevancy not and of irrelevant documents does satisfy controversy. this standard for mandamus relief. However, discovery compels order “[w]here a Marks, Most Maresca v. 362 S.W.2d at 301. production patently dupli- irrelevant or Lawlis, recently, 493 in Hall v. 907 S.W.2d documents, imposes ... cative such that it a (Tex.1995), from granted mandamus relief we producing party on the far out of burden compelling produc- trial court’s order may proportion to benefit that obtain to showing where tion of tax returns no requesting party,” may mandamus relief made, relevancy recognizing our had been Walker, justified. also be 827 S.W.2d at un- previously expressed “reluctance to allow Sears, Ramirez, citing & v. Roebuck Co. 824 unnecessary discovery controlled of fed- and (Tex.1992) (demand 558 for tax re S.W.2d Lawlis, v. eral income tax returns.” Hall turns); Lawrence, Corp. General Motors v. 494-5, Sears, citing 907 at 824 S.W.2d (Tex.1983)(demand 732 651 S.W.2d infor S.W.2d years). about all for all mation vehicles See Texaco, Sanderson, Inc. 898

also S.W.2d similarly reluctant allow unnec- We (Tex.1995). 813 essary litigant’s tithing rec- disclosure of ords, highly which contain information of a Here, imposed by the burden personal private nature and which and discovery order from the derives fact many person’s be a subset of a tax cases only the documents ordered disclosed are not regarding the forced records. As we held also highly per irrelevant but sensitive and records, production the irrele- of tax where many respects, request sonal. In resem portions safeguarded vant of which were not Thus, bles those for tax returns. Crane v. discovery, litigant subjected to so “[a] Tunks, (1959), 160 Tex. privacy legal right an has a invasion of clear rejected argument that we relators’ tax re extraordinary remedy an can since there privileged subject turns are and to dis appeal; privacy be no broken relief on once held, however, covery. We the trial by inspection copying ... its requiring court abused discretion de Maresca, adversary cannot retrieved.” produce fendant to defendant’s income Therefore, 362 S.W.2d at 301.10 under the examining tax without return first it deter here, particular tithing circumstances parts litiga mine which were relevant wholly irrelevant, being records we believe years later, tion. Three in Maresca v. Ac- that the standard has met. Walker been Marks, (Tex.1962), 362 S.W.2d we cordingly, grant Tilton’s motion for leave we granted again on conditional writ the basis writ of as to petition file mandamus clearly that the trial its court abused discre documents, requested production by requiring tion disclosure of irrelevant in pursuant conditionally grant the writ to Tex- returns, formation contained in income tax Appellate as Rule 122. If the Procedure including private regarding information char trial court fails to reverse and vacate his itable contributions. discovery production Til- compelling order Subjecting tax federal income returns of records, tithing ton’s the writ will discovery only our citizens to is sustainable issue. pursuit justice liti- because between outweighs gants protection priva- of their cy. But sacrifice of the latter should be GONZALEZ, J., concurring filed a minimum,

kept requires at a and this scru- dissenting opinion. discovery pulous limitation of to informa- J., justice HECHT, J., by GONZALEZ, furthering joined the parties tion between which, turn, concurring dissenting opinion. can be information of filed a Walker, Crane, inadequa- disapproved we of Crane therein makes clear that the 10. In and other imply cy by appeal produc- cases "to the extent that dy by appeal a reme- remedy from the forced merely inadequate because it from the tion irrelevant tax records derives not might delay or cost than involve more manda- opinion delay, but relative cost or the from the invasion Walker, mus.” 827 S.W.2d at 842. Our litigant's privacy. of a Maresca, however, including our reliance ENOCH, J., joined by quote interpret many CORNYN and verses from the BAKER, JJ., concurring filed a and Scriptures support for his beliefs. dissenting opinion. below, explained merely As it is not a GONZALEZ, Justice, concurring and possibility certainty litigating but a that the dissenting. plaintiffs’ conspiracy claims of fraud and will 1,1995 My opinion August of is withdrawn impermissibly falsity test the truth or following opinion. and substituted I with the Tilton’s convictions. Notwithstand- join opinion judgment now in the Court’s and ing this Court’s admonitions to the trial grants insofar as it the writ of mandamus. court, way inquiry there is no into to avoid balancing falsity

In parties the of the the truth or of Tilton’s assertions suit, right God, to free exercise of prayer about the effect of and dona- religion prevails right plain- tions, over the of the meaning and the verses of various proceed tiffs to with their lawsuit. The trial Bible. The significantly will burden Tilton’s free exercise theory recovery. Consider the fraud rights, guaranteed by which are the First (1) a The elements of fraud claim are: the Amendment to the United States Constitu- (2) speaker representation; made a material I, tion and article section 6 of the Texas (3) false; representation the was when the Moreover, prac- Constitution. while Tilton’s speaker representation made the he knew it clearly fringe, tices are I on the am con- recklessly was false or he made it without allowing proceed that cerned this case to (4) any knowledge falsity; of its truth or the step slippery trial slope is the first down a speaker’s party that intention was the other heresy that ends with trials in our courts. (5) upon representation; should act agree therefore in full with Justice Hecht’s in party upon repre- other acted reliance concurring dissenting opinion and and write sentation; (6) party in- separately to and the other was articulate additional reasons why jured. Stanley the writ should issue as to all v. Bank El causes of T.O. Boot Co. Paso, (Tex.1992). action. To claims, prove plaintiffs their fraud thus pre-trial proceedings, Based on extensive must establish that the statements on which predict we can with confidence how this case they base claims their were false. As the plaintiffs put will unfold. After the on their plaintiffs’ pleadings, Til- Court describes the chief, likely case in Tilton will defend himself knowingly falsely represented ton and by testifying that his beliefs are based on the prayer requests, he would read their that he Holy Scrip- word of God as revealed documents, would “touch” them and their “vows” or do- tures and summarized in two nations, pray and that he that their would “Our Confession of Faith —Statement” and Family prayers “Word of Faith be answered. In some Christian Church and Robert denominations, Tilton Ministries —What Believe.” Tilton representations We these could principles will assert that certain central are reading summary prayer requests mean tithing to his beliefs: that and the actually seeing prayer requests without making “expres- of “vows” or donations are themselves, touching physical without con- trust, obedience devotion ... sion[s] [and] tact, touching requests prayer a mass of Lord,” to the that “God wants His children to praying. This law suit will thus be prosperous every and successful area of transformed into a trial on doctrinal or theo- spiritually materially,” life ... both logical differences between denominations. “prosperity by reached obedience Moreover, the Court truncates the basis deposi- the Word of God.” As he did his plaintiffs’ for the fraud claims. The tion, Tilton will declare his beliefs “God pleaded simply have not fraud because Tilton responds prayers of the faithful and read, touch, pray did not over their physical, spiritual, the faithful with blesses Rather, and donations. the substance letters prosperity” physical and financial and that did of their fraud claim is that because Tilton through ailments and infirmities are healed do, spiritual did not faith. No doubt Tilton will also not do what he said he would God your is that 5 of brief? What that he footnote represented them.1 help that, distinction? because take certain actions and would No, whom God “prophet God” to stand it. I didn’t write he was A I don’t supplicant, it, speak about each I don’t stand it.... prayers. would answer to have Clearly plaintiffs fully intend pre- fraud claim counsel characterized the jury whether Tilton’s beliefs determine cisely argument. terms at oral these Although point false. at one true or issue for counsel denied that the falsity Til- attempting prove In prophet Tilton in fact a trial was whether “is recognize plaintiffs representations, the ton’s contrary: God,” explanation proves his the of they delving avoid into the truth that cannot making false saying he is [Tilton] “I am promised. in what Their role Tilton God’s gaining ... their misrepresentations he is questioned: stated when counsel telling is a by people he confidence these gets people all of out here A So he these Til- prophet Adjudging of God.” whether sending money in under to start or false representations were true ton’s made, has representations the that he deciding jury inexorably the into would draw Be- happen_ it doesn’t and then truly a who prophet he is of God whether prophet if he is a as he cause of God on the spoke for God whether is, says are says things he he these Clearly, secular prayers wotdd be answered. and correct ... and the miracle true competently nor constitu courts can neither happen, so man a con artist didn’t is falsity of the or tionally determine truth and a fraud. promises about what God do. The Unit will Supreme concluded as ed Court has States Q just says going He he to ask God to is much, writing that civil exer courts should things. a do these But he doesn’t make in jurisdiction which concern cise no matters commitment on that it will God’s behalf controversy, discipline, “theological church place? take conformity government, ecclesiastical or the of the the standard of the members church to Nobody guarantee A needs a required of them....” Watson of morals prophet of God. (13 Wall) Jones, 679, 738, 20 L.Ed. 80 U.S. Q that’s what And the case is about? (1871); see also Serbian Eastern Ortho Right. A Milivojevich, Diocese v. 426 U.S. dox 96 S.Ct. 49 L.Ed.2d Counsel, Q I am still confused about the (1976) general the that “reli (expressing rule you going try Mr. extent to which are proper sub gious controversies not the subjective personal Tilton’s faith and his ject inquiry”). of civil court today response belief. You said here trial of the fraud As further evidence that questions sincerity that of his the necessarily determining claims will involve is an issue in You have belief this case. doctrine, falsity religious or the truth that, you have told us not? probable draw the Court’s attention to the A I that I think are entitled to said we It will “Did Tilton jury charge. inquire, look at that issue. against plaintiffs?” and will commit fraud making of a Q page your on brief to this that fraud includes the But instruct court, misrepresentation.” you opposing said counsels 4 State that “material Bas Jury Charges blatantly mischarac- Texas, have misstated and PatteRN PJC Texas (1990). “Plain- Under facts of this your position. 105.01-.02 terized claims and sincerity case, likely question jury will also be instructed tiffs do not belief, if he question misrepresentations made religious rather that Tilton but fact,” “promise Tilton his con- a “false statement of whether even considers made performance an intent to be of a nature.” Do of future made with duct by perform promised,” a “statement you that’s not to stand this' distinction they prayers did His answer. possible that but that not like 1. It is God answered opinion fact,” based on a false underlying statement of unlawful acts. 925 “expression false, opinion case, or that In this the unlawful overt acts claiming made implying one plaintiffs to have that alleged have were special knowledge superior pos- ... to that participated Tilton defrauding them and in plaintiffs sessed” intentionally inflicting and to which the emotional distress plaintiffs equal Thus, “did not have access.” Id. at prove conspiracy them. their civil 105.021A-.021C, claims, PJC plaintiffs again PJC 105.021E. must show the torts, underlying plus elements of the proceed To to trial under the facts of this personally participated in them. As substantially will right case burden Tilton’s fraud, must with the claims for religion. to free exercise of The First persuade jury will have to Amendment to the United States Constitu explained Tilton made false statements. As I, tion and article section 6 of the Texas above, inquiring whether Tilton made false Constitution protection afford broad requires judgment statements on the truth religion.2 judiciary may free exercise of falsity beliefs and convictions. inquire verity into the “truth or of ... inquiries constitutionally impermis- Such are religious doctrines or beliefs.” United States sible. Ballard, 78, 86, 882, 886, 322 64 U.S. S.Ct. (1944). Hence, 88 L.Ed. 1148 no claim of Proceeding to trial is an irremediable may fraud if represen be made it rests on a abuse of discretion which we should avert belief, religious tation of doctrine if even issuing a Despite writ of mandamus. the insincerely the statement was made. See admonitions, way Court’s there is no to avoid Cal., Van Scientology Schaick v. Church turning of of heresy this case into a trial that will Inc., (D.Mass. 1125, F.Supp. 535 1142-43 chilling have a effect on the free exercise of 1982); Holy Spirit Molko v. Ass’n the religion By in this denying state. Tilton’s Christianity, World 46 Cal.3d Unification of petition allowing for a writ of mandamus and 1092, 122, Cal.Rptr. 252 762 P.2d 58 proceed, this trial to opens the Court the (1988); v. Church Scientol governmental Christofferson of per- door to intrusion into the Portland, ogy Or.App. 57 644 P.2d of religious sonal beliefs of our citizens. (1982); Weiss, Privilege, Posture For these in reasons and those Justice Law, “Religion” and Protection: in the opinion, grant peti- Hecht’s I would Tilton’s (1964) that, (stating L.J. if Yale respects. tion for writ of in all mandamus allowed, adjudications courts’ of the truth or falsity religious of doctrines or beliefs result Justice, HECHT, joined GONZALEZ, trials”). facts, “heresy Upon proper in Justice, concurring part dissenting in in undoubtedly religious may leader be held part. fraud, any accountable for the same as other allegations defendant. But when of fraud significant change position The Court’s in require jury pass judgment to on wheth rehearing requires my on that I withdraw false, religious er matters of faith are true or prior opinion dissent and substitute this its no court can resolve the issues without im place. join I opinion now the Court’s pinging on freedoms. judgment except only they deny insofar as lastly I plaintiffs’ join consider the causes of Specifically, mandamus relief. I in all of against conspiracy. opinion action Tilton for civil except para- the Court’s the first I-C, agree conspiracy graph with paragraph the Court claim of Part the first of I-D, liability if derivative because can arise Part and all of Part I-E but the last co-conspirator participated a defendant or a sentence. provides: against authority

2. The Texas Constitution his consent. No human whatever, ought, case to control or right All men have a natural and indefeasible interfere with the ters of conscience in mat- worship Almighty according to to the dic- religion, preference ever and no shall tates of their own consciences. No man shall given by any religious society be law to attend, compelled support any to erect or worship.... mode of Const, I, added). place worship, any ministry (emphasis § or to maintain Tex art. well, to as without threat urge Center others believe Word Faith World Outreach liability. Church, One who finds that congregation of civil a non-denominational faith recover promise rings hollow people in Dallas of several hundred North among It is faith, damages promisor. from the profess and Word who the Christian peo- of our law that Tilton, most fundamental tenets principal pastor, Faith’s Robert proof their “may put not be ple fraud, on claims of inten- to stand trial about Id. or beliefs.” distress, doctrines infliction of emotional tional conduct, conspiracy engage in this tortious every made in name of Not statement brought by plaintiffs gave who of Faith Word religion protection. A cler- is entitled to money based assur- unfounded right agnostic more than an ic has no did, ances God would answer Bridge Brooklyn simply because market That, according prayers. it. he believes faith he owns Unfortunate- Court, and trial counsel's statements to this examples Along obvious. ly, few are so import plain- I also think is the fair experience, distinctions be- spectrum full pending in nut- pleadings, tiffs’ is the case protected and what is not are what is tween shell. blurred, us. as in case now before often agree that All of the of the Court Members developed From the evidence extensive plaintiffs’ claims cannot be tried some of through discovery contained in the record Free abridging without Exercise Clause. us, plaintiffs ought it to me that before seems very disagree on two difficult matters: We prove difficulty to be able without much barred, all of claims are whether misrepresentations that Tilton them. made them; only opposed to some of and whether any dispute, hardly example, There is for court, repeatedly district has re- which promised prayer requests that Tilton if were barred, fused to dismiss the claims are by monetary him accompanied sent to contri- If, I now be directed to do so. as should butions, were, plaintiffs’ as he touch would think, plaintiffs’ the essential element all them, them, them, pray read and and over misrepresented share is that Tilton claims would them. Tilton never God answer do, those are would then claims what God requests prayer (except, touched barred, di- and the district court should be sense), says, in spiritual he a them or read to dismiss them. This the funda- rected (he requests, sometimes read summaries of mental issue the must decide. Court plaintiffs’), which could have included (he prayed prayed them over mounds complains Tilton also that the district court masse, requests any en indi- but seldom over produce personal has ordered him to his itself). request by vidual ever And God records, tithing will which contend them, plain- answered it was not the answer a that Tilton is not a fraud but show short, plaintiffs plain- tiffs wanted. In rather practice he hypocrite he does not what —that ly did not appeared receive what Tilton being If sued a preaches. one could be promise. considerably hypocrite, there be more contention, too, my litigation. This is not country religion in this But and its adher- jury tried to a consis- view one which can be promises cannot be to all their in a ents held tently with the First Amendment. belief, hope, court of law. Statements promise, they agree or even when an essen- I with the Court the district have tially religious opposed purely as secular court should directed dismiss be character, by protected Exer- of intentional infliction of emotional the Free claims tort, conspiracy cise Clause the First to the and to commit this Amendment distress Douglas’ requiring production its and to vacate order United States Constitution. Justice simple century ago personal tithing has To the observation half of Tilton’s records. relief, I aphorism grants an of Free the Court mandamus become Exercise Clause extent may they opinion judgment. cannot concur in and law: “Men believe therefore its Ballard, plaintiffs’ fraud prove.” agree U.S. I that some of United States also Court, tried, 78, 86, unlike cannot be but S.Ct. 88 L.Ed. claims (1944). goes saying It I do not think that fraud claims can without Hence, respectfully

tried. I money dissent from representa- viewers to send based on Court’s denial of mandamus relief. tions that those who do will receive benefits including

from prosperity financial and good encouraged health. Viewers are to call “prayer telephone line” pending litigation originally number to make a was filed monetary Operators “seed of faith” vow. plaintiffs: Patsy High four and her com- answering this line take High; mon information law husband Curtis Andrea John- son; Mary computers callers which is entered into Elizabeth Turk. Turk is now deceased, mailings. used for Word of Faith representatives and two Defen- of her es- tate, Crenshaw, mailings dants’ broadcasts and include testi- Dr. Toni R. Turk and Vicki only by monials of individuals identified plaintiffs. have been substituted as Three of names, great first who claim to originally the seven have obtained named defendants are wealth, cars, houses, good jobs, new relators in proceeding: this mandamus Word Center, Inc., healing, having medical all as a result of of Faith World Outreach once money “seeded their faith” nonprofit corporation contributing Texas with Tilton as dissolved; Tilton and of Faith. president, but Word now Word of Faith Church, World Outreach Center an unincor- Mailings are form letters and brochures porated religious organization and successor composed produced appear per- to be nonprofit corporation; and Robert Til- messages sonal from Tilton to the individual ton, principal pastor. Word of Faith’s Four recipients. Often enclosed with these mail- joined proceed- defendants have not in this ings recipients are forms which can return to ing: Tilton, wife; Marte Robert’s former J.C. prayer requests defendants with noted and Joyce, an attorney Oklahoma who holds a included; monetary weekly contributions in- management position and administrative with made, showing voices the amount of vows Faith; Media, Inc., Response Word an paid, amounts and amounts still owed on corporation allegedly employed by Oklahoma vows; envelopes making and forms and provide marketing Word of Faith to mass items, sending contributions. Other services; strategies and and Internal Data books, literature, tape recordings, such Inc., Management, corporation Oklahoma calendars, cloths, prayer and are also mailed. allegedly which handles the mail to Til- sent primary message mailings, The of all like the ton and Word of Faith. line”, “prayer broadcasts and is the need to Plaintiffs have asserted tort three claims: money. send fraud, intentional infliction of emotional dis- acquire credibility people To and induce to tress, conspiracy and to commit these two money, contribute Tilton claims to abe They they torts. all claim are entitled to prophet (Actually, plaintiffs allege, God. money they recover the contributed to defen- apparent attempt Til- humor: “Robert dants, damages anguish, puni- for mental and God.”) represents profit ton that he is a damages. examining tive Before how each of constantly represents prayer Tilton that if a these claims is affected relators’ First contribution, request is returned with a then defense, recap plaintiffs’ Amendment alle- plaintiffs’ pleadings, the words “Robert gations in some detail. read, personally actually Tilton will and pray requests touch and over each of these A thereby, ... making and the one the vow and pleadings Plaintiffs’ amended contain the request requested.” will receive whatever is following allegations. praying In broadcasts Tilton is shown responsible Defendants are televi- two prayer requests. actual Tilton, programs Sunday sion hosted Live, Morning Patsy High began watching a broadcast of church ser- Tilton’s broad- vices, Life, pro- family physi- and Success ’N an “info-ad” casts soon after her had taken gram throughout custody four children shown the week and more cal of her from her. daily pro- Tilton Distraught, than once some areas. Both she came to believe that custody grams largely urging power help regain to had to her devoted Tilton’s strength and moral children, gain physical and that he so she could and would do money to by contributing day security after money to him. The financial contributed made line and “prayer prayer she line” and made a called $100 called the Tilton. She vow, watching vow, receiving mailings, ’N and eventu- began she was a Success Life say that a she Tilton she ex- ally joined broadcast when heard Word Faith. When experi- person watching ability was to continue pressed broadcast about her doubts family problems contributions, call the encing and should told her to making defendants make a have her “prayer line” to vow to faith. Johnson used state welfare stand in Tilton was family restored. said that $100 sent money contributions and even to make $1,000 implied not at least sufficient stamps, they accepted. defendants food which people who required. said that security was obtained financial Johnson never robbing by holding on their were back healing promised physical she was sending money would enough and not seeds suicidal. eventually depressed became they requested. not Convinced receive what Mary representatives Elizabeth Turk’s her, Patsy talking directly that Tilton was began watching Tilton’s that Turk claim Highs vow of made an additional $900. ail- caring while she for her broadcasts was pay financial lacked the means to convinced ing husband. She became amount, Patsy Tilton’s assertion but believed any power heal her of Tilton had the money would somehow become pain if she physical free her from illness and available. money hus- to him. After her contributed High Til- initially was unsure about Curtis died, excruciating began suffering she band ability Patsy’s ton’s to have children returned treatment. pain refused seek medical but Patsy reported “prayer to her. When this to she made promises, In reliance on operators, that Curtis’ line” told her $1,000, believing she would be healed. vow of preventing in Tilton lack of faith was prayer from Tilton Turk received a cloth children, was return of her and that the devil “anointed”, had and she was which he said he using urging “prayer At the line” Curtis. place over the affected instructed cloth operators, Patsy insisted that attend Curtis so, body to did of her be healed. She area her, Word of Faith services with and he did. put off get Turk but did relief. joined time Both Word Faith and over help developed se- seeking medical until she $15,000. allege contributed over Plaintiffs Be- gangrene and fatal rectal cancer. vere continually them to that defendants told $1,453. gave her death she Tilton about fore faith, “stay strong, paying have and continue He promised. Tilton did not do what he your children vows will be returned handling plaintiffs’ prayer had no intention you.” Patsy suffering Once when was would, he he knew requests as he said headaches, personally prayed Tilton with her plaintiffs could not control whether that he telephone and over the told her she was they He ever receive what wanted. would headaches, however, go Her did not cured. solely misrepresentations plaintiffs to made away. to to him and to induce them contribute cloth, Highs in- prayer Tilton sent the plead. plaintiffs Faith. This is what Word structing pieces to cut it and them into small clothing it into sent to the children so sew B they also that would be returned. Tilton allege that acted Plaintiffs defendants pray over. photos for children to asked They in their amended bad faith. stress Highs complied with instruc- The all of these allega- petition: “Plaintiffs do not base the tions, their children not returned. but were on the faith tions herein and/or Highs had sent all the defendants After Defendants, alle- of the but base the beliefs had, they money they of Faith asked Word specific misrepresen- gations on the acts and away. help for and and turned food were are secular of the Defendants which tations plaintiffs’ practices.” is disabled. acts and To summarize physically Andrea Johnson they daily pleadings, complain that watching lengthy After defendants’ broadcasts week, to them— misrepresented that she she became convinced (cid:127) read, pray over, that he would touch and nothing had to sue counsel prayer requests

individual Asked, when he did argument. conceded at oral “if the not do doing so and had no intention of prayers your clients had been answered so; they the manner in which wished those answered, prayers (cid:127) you to have been would spoken that specific God had to him about today?” not be here an- counsel people when Tilton admitted that God swered, say probably “I would have to it is only sense; spoke general to him in a Still, plaintiffs true.” contend: “The issue (cid:127) touched, that personally prayed he had herein is not whether or not God answered articles, over or anointed various such as prayers, the Plaintiffs’ it is whether or not cloths, prayer special to imbue them with promise Robert Tilton used the false that if power, when he had not done so and the enough money the Plaintiffs would send possessed special power; articles no Tilton, things he would do certain in relation (cid:127) perform that he could miracles when he prayer request, to Plaintiffs’ that and be- so; could not do and cause Tilton would things, do these (cid:127) if they that money would contribute they Plaintiffs would receive whatever asked him, prayers God would answer their and prayer requests.” their This charac- give prosperity, them financial good us, legal terization of the issue before which health, and other rewards. accurate, I think is becomes crucial in ana- Court, In plaintiffs briefs in this have de- lyzing the effect the Free Exercise succinctly: “Patsy scribed their claims more Clause. issue is not whether Tilton High ... that if believed she sent in her meaningless touch, promises made —to money prayer requests and her to Tilton that read, pray, to anoint —that he did touch, actually physically Tilton would keep, or even that keep; he did not intend to read, pray prayer requests over her whether, the issue is kept had Tilton those things, because Tilton would do these promises, given plaintiffs God would have regain physical custody she would of her wanted, they what and because Tilton de- vows, paid children.” “Ms. Johnson on her plaintiffs, prayers ceived their went unheed- if, if, believing she made and ed. The issue is not whether God answered paid monetary vows to Robert Tilton and plaintiffs’ prayers; the issue is whether only because Robert Tilton physically would given plaintiffs would have asked touch, read, pray prayer over her re- for Tilton had done what he said he would quests that were be included with their do. vows, payments made on the she would be- financially independent.” “Mary come Turk II Tilton, believed in she made her vows to cannot, view, my litigated That issue money along Tilton and sent in her with her liability as a fraud claim. Both the and the prayer requests, believing that Tilton would damages components impinge of such a claim things do promised that he and that she rights. defendants’ Free Exercise Clause thereby be healed.” In each instance it important to note that did not say A

understand Tilton to that he could him- desires, only fulfill self that he could agree with the Court the First move God to do so. Plaintiffs all wanted permit Amendment does not trial of a claim children, something security, financial —their veracity religious which turns on the of a they give, health —that looked to toGod but however, agree, plain- belief. I do not that they representations believed Tilton’s to categories. tiffs’ fraud claims fall into two they if money them that contributed for his The claims which the Court describes as intervention, personal likely God was more to involving allegedly repre- “Tilton’s insincere act. belief’, religious sentations of doctrine or matter, course, practical clearly a at As if not a ante are barred the Free one, legal plaintiffs’ prayers “representations had an- Exercise Clause. But the been acts”, they swered to their satisfaction perform would have that he would certain concrete Tilton’s to do touching reading promised, as he failure —e.g., cloths ante at things to have requests likewise The these cannot be determined prayer barred. —are plaintiffs’ damages. for is Tilton the Court that while caused distinction required prove in that the cannot be to court solely to Tilton plaintiffs Had contributed said, Holy Spirit actually prompted him as he attention, I personal or his services to obtain he required prove to he can be whether to as agree perform his failure would that request he prayer or read a when touched Tilton would actionable. Had promised be agree he would. I that distinction said counseling or personal or literature promised made, agree it is can be I do not that but thing exchange in service or some other in pertinent applying the Exercise Free contributions, he could liable then be Clause. perform. falsely prom- Tilton failing to Had contributions to cer- ised he would dedicate personal Plaintiffs did not seek Tilton’s relied purposes, tain contributors who prayer one requests attention to their mon- promise might that be entitled to their celebrity’s They might autograph. seek are ey But of these situations back. none give believed that God could them promised here. Tilton that God involved Tilton, they They god, wanted. saw not as give they his want- would contributors what enhancing as a access to but means of their ed, assuring he it. The would assist him, contributing money Their his God. prom- seems rather clear that Tilton’s record requests, handling prayer their use their counts, and if that were failed on both ise spe- he of articles said he had anointed with be, proven, probably plaintiffs as it could power cial of this was make it more —all They fraud. make out a case of can- would likely grant petitions. that God would their recover, however, prom- because Tilton’s agree with thé that their con- Court whether religious remains the kind of statement ise special really or tributions use articles protected by the is Free Exercise something mattered to God is not that can be Clause. contrast, By tried in court. Tilton whether actually request prayer read a he said when religions Part of the nature of most easily is he would an issue which can respond those general is hold out to who tried, it dispositive but is not case. To receive hope will in return— claim, plaintiffs prevail on their fraud must forgiveness, redemption, whether it be bless- prove actually still if Tilton had read truth, health, happiness, pros- ing, peace, requests, granted God would have hope For fails perity. those for whom that them, didn’t, and because he didn’t. God recompense; other- the law does not afford Otherwise, misrepresentations Tilton’s about wise, religious would believers be discour- meaningless

what he would do are and could stating The aged freely their beliefs. injury. plaintiffs not have caused protects more Free Exercise Clause even the religion. outrageous In the words claims Suppose had told he would Tilton of Ballard: requests morning read their in the because espoused might views ... especially morning pray- attentive to God incredible, preposterous, if not seem ers, evening. and in do it fact he did not until people. most But those doctrines promised This failure to he do what subject jury charged with to trial before clearly damages not render him liable for falsity, finding their the same truth then injury, reading prayer unless it unless caused done can be with beliefs morning really requests important was the triers of fact under- sect. When getting answer them. What task, they do- take that enter forbidden proved; signifi- or did not can be did do main. it cance of his actions cannot Since be. likely proved at cannot be whether God was less 322 U.S. S.Ct. may unusually una- grant plaintiffs’ prayer money be requests

to because interest bashed, raising may it unusu- pray Tilton did not or read his tactics in be touch or offensive, would, ally promises to what personally them as he said and his he may extraordinarily far- personally prayer he do be because did not touch God will may exactly Clause, fetched. He plaintiffs be plaintiffs’ Exercise counsel has say he is: a sham and a fraud. But his prosecute assured us that he intends to those essentially statements are nevertheless reli- claims, provide this Court is unable to defen- gious protected beliefs for which ishe from protection promised by dants the the Consti- liability. responsibility affording tution. The such Court, protected protection, according Tilton is not because he is a lies en- pastor simply court, he tirely because has invoked the by with the district this religion. name of A promise purely of a pronouncement attempts the Court to wash secular nature —that contributions would be its hands of the case. But the reason the buy used to contributors new cars —is not parties are here is because the district court enforcement, legal shielded regardless already issues; passed has on the the district of who makes it. While the line between repeatedly court has least four times— —at religious what is and what is secular is not claims, to plaintiffs’ refused dismiss and the one, always a bright I think Tilton’s state- case is on the brink of trial. clearly ments are rather on the Given the Court’s view that it “irrepa- will side. rably rights” violate Tilton’s constitutional were, least, Some if even not all of them. for the district court to allow “the trier of yet agrees The Court affords no relief. Its fact” to “hear on evidence” barred claims or allowing plaintiffs’ uneasiness all fraud “pass veracity”, only remedy on their proceed conspicuous: claims is remaining for is to relators seek mandamus a We cannot conclude that Tilton’s constitu- parties third The should note time. well suit, by tional will be violated this prohibits the Court neither discourages nor however, because cannot we determine on application another if plain- mandamus this exactly record which of .abbreviated proceed tiffs’ claims ap- to trial. The Court Tilton’s representations plaintiffs rely will parently if envisions that the district court upon prove their claims of fraud.... testify orders Tilton to whether he believes dynamic process nature of the trial plaintiffs, the statements he made to the trial imprudent makes it for us to structure the stop will parties reapply while the for manda- trial based on such an abbreviated record. prevent irreparable mus to an violation of plaintiffs’ argument While at oral counsel rights, although suspect their before us made several statements that prays Court that somehow it will never come present proceed indicated a intent on course, me, to that. it The better seems to is theories, inappropriate we are loath to sub- give relators the relief to which have factually stitute these comments for a de- already Hence, shown themselves entitled. veloped record. we do not hold that the trial court has erred to such an by extraordinary extent that correction B justified.

writ is analysis Nevertheless, The flaw the Court’s fraud is we caution that a failure apparent by damages also its discussion of carefully the trial court to consider each plaintiffs may alleged misrepresentations Citing of the recover. three lower on which decisions, court base their fraud claims ir- two of which were never reparably Court, violate Tilton’s constitutional reviewed this the Court announces rights. identify The trial court must those damages that “the measure of in a fraud ease upon statements which fraud plaintiff’s is the actual amount of loss based, ones, claims are determine which directly proximately results from the beliefs, any, involve doctrines or defendant’s fraudulent conduct.” Ante at and ensure that the of fact trier does not very general 680. While it is true in a sense regarding pass hear evidence them or plaintiff that a defrauded is entitled veracity. whole, superficiality hardly made words, Ante at 680. In other accurate restatement of the measure of fraud while pleadings damages. assert claims barred the Free

693 transaction, sup- may vitiate a Damages for fraud are com Fraud also recoverable I find it difficult to char- consequential punitive. porting rescission. pensatory, Com relationship plaintiffs between ways: acterize the pensatory damages are measured two payments of and Tilton as a the value either as the difference between transaction — received, money exchange prayers in for and other by given plaintiff and the value was, assuming plaintiffs that it things. But “out-of-pocket” damages, or as the dif called unless are not as a rule entitled to rescission promised and the ference between value they they prove that the value of what can received, value called “benefit-of-the-bar they promised. received was less than were gain” damages. Leyendecker & Assocs. Cross, 1051, 29 S.W. Moore v. 87 Tex. (Tex.1984). Wechter, (1895). impossible Again, it is to assess damages oc Consequential are other losses Indeed, prayers. one the value of Tilton’s See, by e.g., the fraud. Trenholm v. casioned God, plain- argue that to whom might even (Tex.1983)(lost Ratcliff, 646 S.W.2d prayed, bless them for the contri- tiffs profits). damages, as in other Punitive irrespective to Tilton butions made cases, willful, egregious con are awarded for in return. The Court’s blithe what did Co., Dennis v. Dial Finance & duct. Thrift may to plaintiffs that be entitled statement (Tex.1966). 401 S.W.2d money simply the diffi- back overlooks case, damages compensatory In this cannot awarding damages in in these circum- culties way be because there is no recovered stances. plaintiffs determine the value of what re- undisputed that Til- ceived. The evidence is Ill plaintiffs generally. prayed ton Assum- plaintiffs’ agree the Court with ing that what Tilton was less than did worth infliction of emotional claims for intentional promised reading plaintiffs’ prayer what he — distress cannot be tried. Because them, requests, touching praying infliction of claims for fraud and intentional plaintiffs specifically say impossible is —it dismissed, it emotional distress should be prohib- properly how much less. The Court conspiracy claims must also follows that their recovery prayers, its for unanswered but it be dismissed. compensatory damages does not how address Having concluded that claims are can ever be determined in this case. The Amendment, First I need not barred jury in this case will be asked to find the Faith Tilton and Word of consider whether was difference between the value what I, greater protection article are afforded given promised either and the value of Constitution, of the Texas which section 6 jury was received. The could find provides pertinent part: given equal the value was to the contribu- All men have a natural and indefeasible made, put tions but it cannot a value on what according worship Almighty right to was received. con- dictates their own authority ought, sciences .... No human specifically recovery approves The Court whatever, inter- case to control or pecuniary consequential damages, al- in mat- fere with the of conscience though allege any pleadings do not such religion.... ters of damages. only consequential damages however, Court, obliged allege anguish. is to consider plaintiffs are for mental The The It this alternative basis for relief. refuses properly permit Court would not ground it “reluctant to damages anguish. To do so on the recover for mental scope important as the anguish damages punitive mental decide an issue as allow guar- the Texas free exercise damages against defendants this ease Constitution’s Ante at antee under these circumstances.” would be to chill defendants free exercise referred person hardly 677 n. 6. The sole “circumstance” religion. A can exercise his factors in- freely, failure to brief the religion knowing that he some- to is Tilton’s provi- construing a constitutional day pay anguish or volved required mental punitive damages. sion. Id.

694 (Tex.1992). 266, disregards 272 Mandamus will

The Court its recent insistence S.W.2d infringe provisions gag set aside orders which that state constitutional be con issue to Garcia, applied considering speech. Davenport on v. strued and before related freedom Coker, (Tex.1992); Grigsby v. provisions Dav 834 4 of the federal constitution. curiam). (Tex. (Tex.1995) Garcia, 4, (per It enport 11-21 904 S.W.2d 619 v. 834 S.W.2d 1992). involving briefing impediment to transfer venue in eases Inadequate is no will issue Yates, 671, on children. v. 734 S.W.2d to consideration of Tilton’s contentions Proffer (Tex.1987). Surely rights at stake in grounds. constitutional The Court state every important as the Davenport: stated in this case are bit as settings. in interests these other Our consideration of state constitutional they not issues is encumbered when dissenting opinion warns Justioe Enooh’s Many fully developed by counsel. of our bar”, post at of “woe to the bench and states, similar sister when confronted with the Court now intends to review all because difficulties, decided have nevertheless summary judgment by mandamus. denials solely grounds cases on state or ordered simply All This is not true. denials sum- briefing of the state issue. We additional mary judgment irrepara- do not threaten the procedure necessary will follow this as If rights. of constitutional defen- ble loss appropriate, grounds when asserted state subjected dants are to trial on claims which adequately have not been briefed. infringe protected free exercise of on their consequence religion, it is of little whether seriously I Id. at 20-21. doubted whether lose, court or on win or in the district Davenport. it in the Court meant what said protects appeal. The Free Exercise Clause Today’s proof that it not. decision is did religious against being “put proof’ Ballard, IV at doctrines and beliefs. U.S. trial, right, That lost at 64 S.Ct. that defendants’ First Amendment Given jury by a favorable ver- cannot be restored impaired will be a trial of at least appeal. Mandamus dict or vindication on claims, position in some of Jus not be denied because it means relief should dissenting opinion that manda tice Enoch’s “jumping prematurely”. into this case Post against protect mus should not issue to this is no more limited in this at 695. The record hardly seriously. infringement can be taken original than it is in other mandamus case If his in Tilton were about lose interest fact, happens that the proceedings. In it so maintaining confidentiality privileged of a fully developed here are rather issues document, grant we would mandamus be only signifi- ready trial. the case is appellate cause “the court would not be able completing record is at cant means of discovery error.” to cure the trial court’s trial, yet deprive it is trial which threatens (Tex. Packer, 833, 843 Walker v. 827 S.W.2d “ rights. defendants of their 1992). [privileged documents] ‘After the repro inspected, had been examined and n n n n ‡ # holding that had erro duced ... a the court sympa- and Word of Faith are Tilton neously of small issued the order would be my convincing A case figures thetic view. pa protecting comfort to relators pro- easily from the evidence can be made ” Tunks, pers.’ (citing Id. 160 Tex. Crane discovery that Tilton and Word of duced in (1959)). Defen 328 S.W.2d advantage plaintiffs’ misfor- Faith took standing dants’ interest in not trial for their hopes and them with false tunes to deceive beliefs, right guaranteed by meager resources. If deprive them of their Constitution, should be afforded at least as protection under the Free Exercise Clause evidentiary protection a claim of much deserving, it would only to the extended privilege. of Faith. probably not reach and Word - however, does, important as because as require arbitration It Mandamus will issue to trial, protecting its citi- parties go to the State’s interest than allow the rather fraud, preserving its interest though error could be corrected zens even important. is far more Tipps, religious freedom appeal. Anglin B. Co. v. Jack unexplained inexplicable. slightest, is Each week communities world, nobler, only possible result country promise suggest better this is the besides, respond. people incomplete will record more the Court has an because Usually they support— and, also ask for financial only holding can fashion a consequently, Tilton, they perhaps greedily as but not future record will by guessing about what the agree ask all I with the Court the same. be. require that the First Amendment does not plea jurisdiction, Regarding the the we promises they of a prove them to the make of such specifically held that the denial have is nature. But as I that believe plea by mandamus. Bell is not reviewable being in compelled to do defendants are Textron, Walker, Helicopter Inc. v. 787 case, this direct court to I would the district (Tex.1990). ex- The Court S.W.2d plaintiffs’ claims. dismiss why wrong it a mere six plains neither was Accordingly, respectfully I dissent. Helicop- it years ago why nor Bell overrules today. ter Justice, ENOCH, joined by CORNYN why jumps into this As for the Court case BAKER, Justices, part and concurring in gives stage proceedings, of the it no at this dissenting part. in implication than an that free reason other petition on matter is here for writ This relatively impor- religion is more exercise of inappro- Because mandamus. mandamus is rights. explanation, tant than other Without priate, deny Consequent- I all relief. “may not notes that mandamus the Court ly, partial in concur the denial of relief but every in in appropriate case which constitu- judgment granting dissent from the Court’s impaired,” in rights are it is tional but this mandamus relief. principled at I see no case. 925 S.W.2d say I think it is safe to that the members elevating rights basis for free exercise above believe court this Court that the trial others. granted summary judgment, at should have speech rights. free courts Consider part, acting least in in case. this The Court’s upon in may be called to intercede favor of signifi- on that belief troubles me in several prior speech involving re- free cases First, now, up cant respects. until this Garcia, Davenport v. straints. See Court held that avail- has never mandamus is (mandamus (Tex.1992) 4, 10-11 able to review the denial a motion for granted part gag to vacate trial court’s Second, summary judgment. to review the order). speech prior But a restraint of in- plea jurisdiction, has to Court government infringement of direct volves directly its own Most precedent. overrule case, speak. the state freedom to In this is justifies importantly, holding the Court its indirectly, through only acting the courts implication

with the bald the First referee, only disputes as a an arbiter right religion to free Amendment exercise parties, private all of whom have between is than important more other constitutional they seek to interests vindicate. rights. good reviewing jumping prematurely, reason for In into ease There is this summary judgments into petitions denial of on of this Court are forced members it, unnecessary agree that en- writ of mandamus. This and woe debate. all case We wrought during impinges trial on Tilton’s First the bench and bar. The solution point. today rights. not the certainly must leave the Amendment But that’s the Court parties slack-jawed. arguing court How the trial While whether ease, proceed through claims in this neither the the trial court is to the make viable argue try my dissenting colleagues opinion in this nor minefield laid Court’s Court of the only claims and not the Free Exercise Clause First certain limited of fraud others, only grants clergy a license de- pertinent to admit evidence Amendment claims, they Nor do for limit- or inflict torts on others. those limited even then fraud to believe is only, dispute and to that while the freedom purposes ed ensure that act, absolute, though based on implicated free are the freedom to exercise never jury arising belief or in the context of ted to the and what not. That is Connecticut, religion, is not. trial all Cantwell 310 what courts do the time. 296, 303-04, 900, 903, U.S. 84 L.Ed. S.Ct. Court, My colleagues granting (1940). Religious subject conduct is mandamus, extraordinary remedy rush regulation protection society. for the Id. religious liberty, liberty to vindicate My colleagues 60 S.Ct. at 903. exists in balance with other liberties we merely arguing significance over the of the enjoy. In process, ignore pleaded plaintiffs. facts and the intent roughshod run Court’s role as arbiter and complete likely A record would eliminate join my rights. over other vital I cannot much of their discussion. colleagues in this effort. Tilton’s free exer- Furthermore, win, balance, my may ultimately colleagues agree rights that in cise refereeing personal injury in actions which because of the record that evolves at trial. religion

the free exercise of is asserted as a But mandamus this case is not the vehicle defense, necessarily courts must balance a which this Court should strike that bal- remedying injuries tension between tortious ance. protecting the free exercise the deny I petition. the acknowledge defendant. We each that this

balance, religion because freedom of is so history

entrenched our and constitutional make-up, precarious. opinion The Court’s my colleagues’ today simply dissents are difficulty discerning testament

proper competing balance between inter- ests. FIRE STATE FARM AND CASUALTY sure, sending To be certain matters to the COMPANY, Petitioner, jury may ultimately improper. See Unit- Ballard, 87-88, ed States v. 322 U.S. (1944) (trial 882, 886-87, 88 L.Ed. 1148 S.Ct. GANDY, Individually Julie Kathleen jury properly ques- court withheld from all Pearce, Assignee Ted concerning falsity

tions truth of the Respondent. religious beliefs of defendants convicted of No. 94-0781. fraud). However, reiterate, religious mail per exempted regula- conduct is not se Supreme Court of Texas. providing tion. The state has an interest Argued 1995. Jan. injured persons clergy’s remedies to fraud or tortious conduct. And other while July Decided perhaps granted the trial court should have summary judgment on one or more of the claims, concedes that the Court may try

trial court certain claims without interference with Tilton’s free rights. Consequently, case is

exercise maybe going proceedings, back for further why even a trial. I do not understand hamstring parties Court chooses to by hastening parse out in the trial court advance, record, complete and without a may and what cannot be be tried slightest. broached in the The trial court is determine, position as the trial the best proper progresses, inquiry which areas not, and what be submit- and which are

Case Details

Case Name: Tilton v. Marshall

Court Name: Texas Supreme Court

Date Published: Jul 12, 1996

Citation: 925 S.W.2d 672

Docket Number: 94-1233

Court Abbreviation: Tex.