Daniels v. CITY OF HARTFORD, ALA.

How courts have described this case

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

• “The fact that food is served cold does not amount to a constitutional violation. Nor does an unvaried but reasonably well-balanced ... menu traverse the constitutional standard.”
• “[F]or purposes of qualified immunity, a governmental actor engaged in purely ministerial activities can nevertheless be performing a discretionary function.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).