Lake Brady Spiritualists Camp Ass'n v. Brown, 79-1037

• Decision Date: 09 April 1980
• Docket Number: No. 79-1037,79-1037
• Citation: 402 N.E.2d 1187,16 O.O.3d 34,62 Ohio St.2d 43
• Parties: , 16 O.O.3d 34 LAKE BRADY SPIRITUALISTS CAMP ASSOCIATION, Appellee, v. BROWN, Atty. Gen., Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 43

62 Ohio St.2d 43

402 N.E.2d 1187, 16 O.O.3d 34

LAKE BRADY SPIRITUALISTS CAMP ASSOCIATION, Appellee, v. BROWN, Atty. Gen., Appellant.

No. 79-1037.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

April 9, 1980.

This appeal arises from appellee-Lake Brady Spiritualists Camp Association's attempt to obtain a charitable bingo license. (See R.C. 2915.07 et seq.) Appellee is an association of approximately 3,000 members throughout the United States who share in the common belief of spiritualism and the "Infinite Intelligence." Appellee has been incorporated in Ohio as a not-for-profit organization since 1899. ¹ Every year since the early 1900's, during the months of July and August, the members have gathered at Brady Lake for religious services, lectures, healing services, rummage sales and cookouts. The camp consists of approximately 10 acres with a church building, a "hotel" building, and 36 cottages. The association's president and secretary-treasurer are ministers who, along with other spiritualist ministers, preach and lecture to the membership. Appellee has been exempted from federal taxation since 1948.

Appellee's application was rejected on the basis that the association was not a "charitable organization" as defined by R.C. 2915.01(H), since it was not a "religious organization" as defined by R.C. 2915.01(I). Pursuant to R.C. Chapter 119, appellee exercised its right to an administrative hearing. The hearing officer concluded that appellee was not a "religious organization." The Attorney General's office issued an adjudication order which approved the hearing examiner's report and rejected the license application. In an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, the court found that the adjudication order was contrary to law and not supported by the evidence and ordered that a license be issued. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision and stated:

"In the absence of specific definition in the statute, the term 'regular worship and religious observances' is susceptible to many interpretations. * * * It is only when 'regular worship' is construed in the logical context of 'being in the manner conducted by a given religious faith' that the intent of the legislature can conform harmoniously with constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom."

The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Freeman, Igoe, Hanson & Polhamus and William R. Polhamus, Columbus, for appellee.

William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Toba Jeanne Feldman, Columbus, for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

The issue in this cause is whether appellee is a religious organization as that phrase is used in R.C. 2915.01(I). ² That section states: " 'Religious organization' means any church, body of communicants, or group that is not organized or operated for profit, that gathers in common membership for regular worship and religious observances."

The only portion of this definition in question is whether appellee gathers for regular worship and religious observance. It is undisputed that appellee meets the other criterion presented in R.C. 2915.01(I). The statute does not define what is meant by "regular worship and religious observance," and that phrase is open to various...