Skip to main content
· 12/31/2008

ILINA v. Zickefoose

Citations

  • 591 F. Supp. 2d 145
  • 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105357
  • 2008 WL 5421393

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 Second Circuit has repeatedly and consistently held § 2241 to be a proper vehicle for asserting conditions-of-confinement claims, without limitation”
  • noting that “the Second Circuit has repeatedly and consistently held § 2241 to be a proper vehicle for asserting conditions-of-confinement claims, without limitation”
  • noting that “the Second Circuit has repeatedly and consistently held § 2241 to be a proper vehicle for asserting conditions-of-confinement claims, without limitation”
  • noting that “the Second Circuit has repeatedly and consistently held § 2241 to be a proper vehicle for asserting conditions-of-confinement claims, without limitation”
  • noting that “the Second Circuit has repeatedly and consistently held § 2241 to be a proper vehicle for asserting conditions-of-confinement claims, without limitation”
  • noting that “the Second Circuit has repeatedly and consistently held §2241 to be a proper vehicle for asserting conditions-of-confinement claims, without limitation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Janet Bond Arterton

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.