Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Tenth Circuit· 4/2/2010

Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone

Citations

  • 600 F.3d 1301
  • 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 6861
  • 2010 WL 1254350

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • “we do not intend to imply that every infringement on a religious exercise will constitute a substantial burden”
  • “[A]ny ability to purchase is chimerical where a plaintiff is indigent . . . .”
  • “We conclude that a religious exercise is substantially burdened under [RFRA] 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc–1(a
  • \[A]ny ability to purchase is chimerical where a plaintiff is indigent....\
  • “First, any ability to purchase is chimerical where a plaintiff is indigent, as is Mr. Abdulhaseeb. Second, … [because] no Halal vendors have been approved by DOC … Mr. Abdulhaseeb could not have purchased halal foods even if he had funds.”
  • “Discovery and scheduling are matters within the district court’s broad discretion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Henry, Ebel, Gorsuch

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

71 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

56 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.