Supreme Court Third Petty Bench Decision of February 21, 1995, 49 Minshu 2-231. The Court recognized the standing of a representative official of a Shinto Shrine religious entity as well as a representative of its parishioners to bring suit against the entity with respect to the confirmation of the status of the representative official. The Court denied standing, however, of the parishioners themselves.

Supreme Court Third Petty Bench Decision of July 18, 1995, 49 Minshu 7-2717, 1542 Hanji 64, 888 Hanta 130. The Court recognized the standing of a former member of a Shingon Buddhist temple and to bring suit against the temple for his removal from the temple's membership rolls, reversed and remanded to the Takamatsu High Court for further adjudication on the issue of whether the removal was appropriate. The plaintiff had sought the discharge of the temple's priest, but had been removed from the temple membership pursuant to regulations adopted by the Shingon church pursuant to Article 13(1) of the Religious Organization Law, which allows for the removal of a member who interferes with the "management and maintenance of the temple." In reaching the conclusion that the dispute between the member and the temple was a "legal dispute" appropriate for judicial resolution under Court Law Article 3(1), the Court found that the regulations of the Shingon church created a legal relationship between the member and the temple insofar as members played a role in the management and operation of the temple, approving selection of temple personnel, expenditure of temple funds, adoption of temple regulations, and had the power to dissolve the temple.

Tokyo District Court Decision of July 20, 1995, 1543 Hanji 127. The court dismissed a suit by opposition party members seeking the nullification of a resolution passed by the lower house of the Diet marking 1995 as the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II as not a "legal dispute" appropriate for judicial resolution under Court Law Article 3(1).

Tokyo District Court Decision of January 19, 1996, (Unpublished). The court refused to accept jurisdiction over the effect of regulations of the lower house of the Diet. On June 14, 1993, the plaintiff, a member of the lower house of the Diet, had authored legislation providing for popular vote on certain issues of national importance, and, with the support of 92 other Diet members, submitted the legislation to the House of Representatives Secretariat, Proposed Legislation Department ("Secretariat") for approval for consideration by the Diet as a whole. However, the Secretariat had refused to accept the draft legislation since the plaintiff was a non-affiliated Diet member, and there was a general requirement that legislation presented for consideration by the Diet be supported and acknowledged by a registered political party. Accordingly, the regular Diet session ended on June 18, 1993 without consideration or debate on the plaintiff’s proposed legislation. The plaintiff sued the national government asserting that the Secretariat’s practice of refusing to accept draft legislation without party support violated lower house regulations as well as the National Diet Law and unconstitutionally and illegally limited the freedom of expression of Diet members. The court, siding with the defendant, found the administration of the House of Representatives, including the procedure for the submission of legislation for consideration by the Diet, lay within the self-regulatory power of the Diet and beyond the jurisdiction of the court.

Tokyo District Court Decision of March 14, 1997, 1612 Hanji 101, 953 Hanta 298. The court refused to accept jurisdiction over claims to limit aircraft activity at the Yokoda Air Force Base near Tokyo. The plaintiffs, a citizen’s group, brought suit against the United States government to enjoin aircraft from taking off or landing at the base between 9:00 pm and 7:00 am and for compensation suffered as a result of past noise pollution caused by such aircraft activity. While typically protected from suit based on sovereign immunity, the court acknowledged that foreign governments may be subject to suit in Japan where such governments have affirmatively agreed to be subject to suit or where the matter in dispute involves real property in Japan. In the instant case, the matter in dispute does not directly involve rights in real property. Moreover, although there is one instance of the United States government having consented to suit in Japan, this sole case does not provide an adequate basis for imputing consent to suit generally. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ claims must be dismissed.