Philip W. Henderson v. Cal A. Terhune

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the second factor weighed 5 in the prisoner’s favor where cutting his hair involved a strict religious prohibition 6 about the sanctity and purity of the body
• declining to express any opinion 15 about whether plaintiff could prevail under RLUIPA because plaintiff brought his claim under the 16 First Amendment only
• upholding grant of summary judgment against Native American plaintiff alleging that 8 prison limitation on hair length violated the First Amendment
• declining to express any opinion 15 about whether plaintiff could prevail under RLUIPA because plaintiff brought his claim under the 16 First Amendment only
• declining to express any opinion 2 about whether plaintiff could prevail under RLUIPA because plaintiff brought his claim under the 3 First Amendment only
• whether regulation impermissibly restricts First Amendment rights under Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) is mixed question of law and fact; legitimacy of asserted penological interest is a finding of fact

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).