Cult Awareness Network v. Church of Scientology International, Inc.
Illinois Supreme Court
177 Ill. 2d 267, 226 Ill. Dec. 604 (1997)

- Written by Kate Luck, JD
Facts
Cult Awareness Network (the network) (plaintiff) filed a malicious-prosecution case against the Church of Scientology (the church) (defendant). The network alleged that over the course of a year and a half, the church had filed 21 lawsuits against the network in an attempt to bankrupt the network. The network alleged that the lawsuits lacked probable cause and were terminated in the network’s favor by summary judgment, voluntary dismissal, or involuntary dismissal. The network sought damages for attorney’s fees and increased liability insurance. The church filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the underlying suits were not decided in the network’s favor because the lawsuits did not end in a determination of the facts. The church also argued that the network failed to plead special damages and that if the court found that the network had sufficiently pleaded special damages, it would violate the church’s First Amendment right to engage in litigation. The trial court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim because the network had failed to allege that the underlying actions were terminated in its favor and had failed to plead special damages. The network appealed, and the appellate court affirmed. The network appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Freeman, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.