green
Positive treatment
7.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Brooks v. Roy
(2×)
Religious Expression Claims under the First Amendment, RLUIPA and Minnesota Constitution, Article I, § 16 With regards to Brooks’s freedom of expression claim, while it is true that confined individuals enjoy the right to freedom of religion, (see Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322 , 92 S.Ct. 1079 , 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972) (per curiam); Hamilton v. Schriro, 74 F.3d 1545 , 1550 (8th Cir.1996) (citation omitted)), “when a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Turner v. Safley, 48…
discussed
Cited "see"
Lance Wickner v. Mike Green
(2×)
See Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir.) (de novo standard of review), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 991 , 125 S.Ct. 501 , 160 L.Ed.2d 378 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hetsberger v. Dept. of Corrections
(2×)
See Murphy v. Missouri Department of Corrections, 372 F. 3d 979 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 991 , 125 S.Ct. 501 , 160 L.Ed. 2d 378 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
Anthony Moore v. Timothy Schuetzle
(2×)
See Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir.), cert, denied, 543 U.S. 991 , 125 S.Ct. *134 501, 160 L.Ed.2d 378 (2004) (standard of review).
discussed
Cited "see"
Victor Ziegler, Sr. v. Gale Norton
(2×)
See Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir.) (de novo standard of review), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 991 , 125 S.Ct. 501 , 160 L.Ed.2d 378 (2004).
cited
Cited "see"
Lamb v. Missouri Department of Corrections
See Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 982 (8th Cir.) (de novo standard of review), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 501 , 160 L.Ed.2d 378 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pratt v. Corrections Corp. of America
See Murphy v. Mo. Dep’t of Corr., 372 F.3d 979, 987-88 (8th Cir.) (Congress passed RLUIPA to re-institute some of protections of RFRA), cert. denied, U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 501 , 160 L.Ed.2d 378 (2004); cf. Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1115-116 (9th Cir.) (remanding to allow inmate to plead RLUIPA claim, where court had dismissed RFRA claim based on Flores , and while appeal was pending, Congress passed RLUIPA), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 810 , 124 S.Ct. 50 , 157 L.Ed.2d 23 (2003).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rosky v. Baker
Respondents 26 have quoted a decision of the court of appeals that clarifies the issue: 27 As the Eleventh Circuit has explained, "Section 2254 presumes that federal courts already have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner. . . . 28 [I]t is not itself a grant of habeas authority, let alone a discrete and independent 1 source of post-conviction relief." Medberry v. Crosby, 351 F.3d 1049, 1059-60 (11th Cir.2003); see also id. at 1056-58 (explaining the evolution of § 2254). 2 Instead, it is § 2241 that provides generally for the granting of writs of habeas corpu…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lewis
v.
Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
v.
Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
04-6296.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 15, 2004.
Published
LEWIS
v.
DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION.
No. 04-6296.
Supreme Court of United States.
November 15, 2004.
1
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.