Emilio Ledesma, Jr. v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding two cases were related, in part because \the Court will be required to make similar factual determinations in both cases\
• concluding two cases were related, in part because “the Court will be required to make similar factual determinations in both cases”
• finding that cases arose out of a common event or transaction where plaintiffs challenged the same Department of Defense and Army regulations and policies governing requests for religious accommodations
• concluding relation of two cases was proper because \the plaintiffs in both cases at issue ... challenge[d] the same Department of Defense and Army regulations governing requests for religious accommodations on the same grounds\
• concluding relation of two cases was proper because “the plaintiffs in both cases at issue . . . challenge[d] the same Department of Defense and Army regulations governing requests for religious accommodations on the same grounds”
• denying preliminary relief where plaintiffs alleged that they had suffered past delays, uncertainty, and pressure to forgo their constitutional rights

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).