34 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 236,991 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,978 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police
491 U.S. 58 (1989) Cited 24,313 times
Holding that official capacity state officer suits for prospective injunctive relief are suits against a "person" under § 1983 even though a "State" is not a "person" under that statute
Turner v. Safley
482 U.S. 78 (1987) Cited 10,204 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding a regulation unconstitutional after noting that the prison "pointed to nothing in the record suggesting" the existence of a rational connection between the regulation and the asserted government interest and that "[c]ommon sense likewise suggests that there is no [such] connection"
Cutter v. Wilkinson
544 U.S. 709 (2005) Cited 2,140 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that section 3 of the RULPA, which increased level of protection of prisoners' and other incarcerated persons' religious rights, did not violate the Establishment Clause
Sossamon v. Texas
563 U.S. 277 (2011) Cited 1,638 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding RLUIPA's authorization of "appropriate relief" did not "clearly and unambiguously waive sovereign immunity to private suits for damages"
Sossamon v. Lone Star State of Texas
560 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2009) Cited 1,240 times
Holding "RLUIPA is clear enough to create a right for damages on the cause-of-action analysis, but not clear enough to do so in a manner that abrogates state sovereign immunity from suits for monetary relief"
Lovelace v. Lee
472 F.3d 174 (4th Cir. 2006) Cited 868 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "negligent acts by officials causing unintended denials of religious rights do not violate the Free Exercise Clause" because a plaintiff "must assert conscious or intentional interference with his free exercise rights to state a valid claim under § 1983"
Baranowski v. Hart
486 F.3d 112 (5th Cir. 2007) Cited 753 times
Holding that budgetary and security concerns were a compelling governmental interest justifying the failure to provide kosher meals to a Jewish inmate
Herman v. Holiday
238 F.3d 660 (5th Cir. 2001) Cited 772 times
Holding that transfer to a different facility rendered claims for declaratory and injunctive relief moot
Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Cited 489,827 times 693 Legal Analyses
Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 329,861 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1441 - Removal of civil actions
28 U.S.C. § 1441 Cited 50,272 times 151 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the ... laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.”
Section 2000cc-1 - Protection of religious exercise of institutionalized persons
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 Cited 3,470 times 4 Legal Analyses
Requiring the inmate to prove that a policy imposes a "substantial burden" on his religious exercise and the government to prove that the policy furthers a "compelling governmental interest"
Section 2000cc - Protection of land use as religious exercise
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc Cited 2,937 times 40 Legal Analyses
Requiring comparison with a "nonreligious assembly or institution"
Section 2000cc-2 - Judicial relief
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2 Cited 886 times 4 Legal Analyses
Nothing in RLUIPA "shall be construed to amend or repeal the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995"
Section 110.003 - Religious Freedom Protected
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 110.003 Cited 41 times
Providing that the government may not "substantially burden" religious exercise
Section 110.005 - Remedies
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 110.005 Cited 13 times
Allowing damages, costs, reasonable expenses, and attorney's fees

Williams v. Texas Department Of Criminal Justice Correctional Institutions Division

34 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that official capacity state officer suits for prospective injunctive relief are suits against a "person" under § 1983 even though a "State" is not a "person" under that statute

Holding a regulation unconstitutional after noting that the prison "pointed to nothing in the record suggesting" the existence of a rational connection between the regulation and the asserted government interest and that "[c]ommon sense likewise suggests that there is no [such] connection"

Holding that section 3 of the RULPA, which increased level of protection of prisoners' and other incarcerated persons' religious rights, did not violate the Establishment Clause

Holding RLUIPA's authorization of "appropriate relief" did not "clearly and unambiguously waive sovereign immunity to private suits for damages"

Holding "RLUIPA is clear enough to create a right for damages on the cause-of-action analysis, but not clear enough to do so in a manner that abrogates state sovereign immunity from suits for monetary relief"

Holding that "negligent acts by officials causing unintended denials of religious rights do not violate the Free Exercise Clause" because a plaintiff "must assert conscious or intentional interference with his free exercise rights to state a valid claim under § 1983"

Holding that budgetary and security concerns were a compelling governmental interest justifying the failure to provide kosher meals to a Jewish inmate

Holding that transfer to a different facility rendered claims for declaratory and injunctive relief moot

Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Holding that “[a]ny civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the ... laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties.”

Requiring the inmate to prove that a policy imposes a "substantial burden" on his religious exercise and the government to prove that the policy furthers a "compelling governmental interest"

Requiring comparison with a "nonreligious assembly or institution"

Nothing in RLUIPA "shall be construed to amend or repeal the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995"

Providing that the government may not "substantially burden" religious exercise

Allowing damages, costs, reasonable expenses, and attorney's fees