Willie Garner v. Paul Morales

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 district court’s “finding that any increased costs would be insignificant” was not “clearly erroneous” where TDCJ had conducted “no studies concerning the costs of allowing inmates to grow beards”
• concluding that TDCJ’s no-beard policy for inmates failed under RLUIPA because TDCJ presented “no evidence of any specific incidents affecting prison safety in those systems due to beards”
• assuming that Texas prison system’s no-beard policy substantially burdened exercise of a prisoner’s Muslim faith
• conducting detailed inquiry into whether ban on beards was least restrictive means
• Rule 52 findings of fact and conclusions of law serve three purposes, two of which are: “engendering care by the court in determining the facts”; and “enabling] appellate courts to carry out a meaningful review”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).