Gary Wall v. James Wade

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that damages are unavailable under RLUIPA and a “plaintiff’s only potential remedies under RLUIPA are equitable.”
• observing that the doctrine of qualified immunity “has no application to suits for declaratory or injunctive relief”
• explaining that right to religious dietary accommodations in prison is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes
• determining that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity when it was established that decisions related to the application of a religious services policy were unconstitutional
• finding change in policy did not moot action when there was “some degree of doubt that the new policy will remain in place for long”
• describing prisoner’s Free Exercise Clause right to “a diet consistent with his religious scruples” (cleaned up)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).