Kurt B. Knight, William C. Andrews v. William Armontrout

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the lack of outside recreation for thirteen days was not a constitution violation
• finding that the denial of recreation for thirteen days does not amount to cruel and unusual punishment
• noting that “[d]enial of recreation for a short period, per se, is not a constitutional violation.”
• discussing that “[d]enial of recreation for a short period, per se, is not a constitutional violation” (citation omitted)
• noting that “[d]enial of recreation for a short period, per se, is not a constitutional violation”
• finding denial of outdoor recreation for thirteen days not cruel and unusual punishment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).