Paul Jolly v. Thomas Coughlin, Robert Greifinger, John P. Keane, C. Greiner, S. Kapoor

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that prison officials cannot impinge on sincere religious belief simply by showing that ʺas an objective matter, the plaintiffʹs belief is not accurate or logicalʺ
• applying RFRA’s “compelling interest” test to religious exercise claims of inmate
• prison policy not insulated from scrutiny “merely because defendants brandish the concepts of public health and safety”
• prison policy not insulated from scrutiny “merely because defendants brandish the concepts of public health and safety”
• \The district court therefore properly relied on the presumption of irreparable injury that flows from a violation of constitutional rights.\
• “[C]orrectional officials have an affirmative obligation to protect inmates from infectious disease[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).