Arnold v. Thurston

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a prison official’s inadvertent opening of an inmate’s constitutionally protected mail did not give rise to a constitutional violation, because there was no evidence of improper motive or actual denial of access to the courts
• finding that “single incident in which prison officials allegedly improperly opened legal mail” did not justify relief where plaintiff failed to “show either an improper motivation by defendants or denial of access to the courts”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).