Frank Africa v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Leroy S. Zimmerman (Attorney General) Bureau of Corrections Ronald Marks (Commissioner of b.o.c.)

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that plaintiffs cannot use religion to claim a “blanket privilege” or “cloak[]” a secular belief “with religious significance”
• concluding that plaintiffs cannot use religion to claim a “blanket privilege” or “cloak[] with religious significance” a secular belief
• holding that the belief that raw food is “healthy” constitutes a personal belief rather than a religious one
• holding that prison was not required to provide prisoner with all raw food diet because his asserted beliefs “[are] not a ‘religion,’ in the sense that term is used in the first amendment”
• holding plaintiff’s “sincerely-held beliefs . . . are not ‘religious’” under the First Amendment,2 without analyzing sincerity, which was undisputed
• finding that the concept of ordered liberty precludes allowing any single person a blanket privilege “to make his own standards of conduct in which society as a whole has important interests.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).