Perry v. Catholic Archdiocese-St. Louis; Goebel v. Catholic Archdiocese-St. Louis; McCormick v. Catholic Archdiocese-St. Louis; Ohl-Marsters v. Catholic Archdiocese-St. Louis, No. 10-1676 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseAppellees sued the Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis ("Archdiocese"), alleging that one of its priests sexually abused them when they were children and asserted Missouri common law claims against the Archdiocese for negligent hiring and for negligent retention and supervision. The Archdiocese moved for an interlocutory review of the district court's denial of its motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) where the Archdiocese principally relied on Gibson v. Brewer, in which the Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the dismissal of some materially indistinguishable claims. The court held that assuming the district court correctly held Gibson advanced a faulty First Amendment analysis, the district court erred in failing to predict the impact of the Missouri Constitution upon the negligence claims. Because the Supreme Court of Missouri in Gibson indicated the First Amendment was a complete defense to the negligence claims and reiterated the religious freedom provisions of the Missouri Constitution were broader than those of the First Amendment, it seemed highly likely that the Supreme Court of Missouri would bar the negligence claims under the Missouri Constitution, if its First Amendment analysis were later abrogated by the Supreme Court of the United States. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for dismissal of the negligence claims, as well as for further proceedings.
Court Description: Civil case - torts. In case involving allegations that the Archdiocese negligently hired, supervised and retained a priest who allegedly sexually abused the plaintiffs, it seems highly likely that the Supreme Court of Missouri would bar the negligence claims under the Missouri Constitution if its First Amendment analysis were abrogated by the Supreme Court of the United States, and the matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.