Burlington Northern Railroad v. James

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the plaintiff’s “voluntary” engagement in a hunger strike “undercuts his claim of deliberate indifference” (citation omitted)
• noting that the plaintiff’s “voluntary” engagement in a hunger strike “undercuts his claim of deliberate indifference”
• dismissing free exercise and RLUIPA claims where inmate alleged he did not receive kosher meals on occasion while being transferred between facilities
• “It is well settled that periodic or temporary denial of religious meals does not constitute ‘substantial’ interference with free exercise, and is insufficient to establish a First Amendment claim.”
• “It is well settled that periodic or temporary denial of religious meals does not constitute ‘substantial’ interference with free exercise, and is insufficient to establish a First Amendment claim.”
• “It is well settled that periodic or temporary denial of religious meals does not constitute ‘substantial’ interference with free exercise, and is insufficient to establish a First Amendment claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).