Peter Poole, III v. Debbie Issacs

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “cost reduction, as a general matter, is unquestionably a compelling interest of TDCJ,” but expressing skepticism that TDCJ’s savings in denying kosher meals to a prisoner constitutes a compelling interest
• holding that “the imposition of a modest fee for medical services, standing alone, does not violate the Constitution”
• holding that “the imposition of a modest fee for medical services, standing alone, does not violate the Constitution”
• finding that a healthcare administrator was not liable for deliberate indifference where she insisted the inmate pay a $2 co-pay before receiving treatment for dental pain, and the inmate refused, thus delaying his own care
• joining other courts in holding that “the imposition of a modest fee for medical services, standing alone, does not violate the Constitution”
• “the imposition of a modest fee for medical services, standing alone, does not violate the Constitution”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).