Search for: "BEARD v. OHIO" Results 21 - 40 of 69
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Dec 2006, 11:00 am
LEXIS 92516 (SD OH, Dec. 21, 2006), an Ohio federal district court permitted a prisoner to amend his pending complaint to allege that forcing him to have his beard cut violated his rights under RLUIPA. [read post]
12 Jun 2011, 10:00 am by Howard Friedman
LEXIS 60628 (SD OH, June 7, 2011), an Ohio federal magistrate judge rejected claims by a Seventh Day Adventist inmate regarding the refusal by prison authorities to relieve the inmate of a work assignment on one Friday evening.In Williams v. [read post]
15 Nov 2008, 6:30 pm
Beard    Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids 08a0692n.06 USA v. [read post]
11 Aug 2008, 2:32 am
Beard     Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids 08a0472n.06 William J. [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 7:38 pm by cdw
The Ohio Supreme Court in State v. [read post]
28 Aug 2014, 3:36 am by Marty Lederman
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit overturned the convictions of 16 members of the Bergholz Old Order Amish community in Ohio under the 2009 federal hate-crimes law, even though it was undisputed that over a three-month period in 2011, the assailants--under the direction and approval of the Bishop of the Bergholz community, Samuel Mullett--attacked nine other Amish individuals by forcibly slicing off the men’s beards and cutting the women’s hair. [read post]
21 May 2017, 6:48 am by John H Curley
Ohio Supreme Court concludes that limitations on an arbitrator's remedial authority must be set forth in the cbaIn its recent decision in Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Association v. [read post]
17 Feb 2008, 6:24 am
LEXIS 10747, (ND OH, Jan. 8, 2008), an Ohio federal district court denied a motion for appointment of counsel and a motion to extend time to file an appellate brief by a prisoner who became an Orthodox Jew while in prison and wanted to wear a beard and sidelocks. [read post]
7 May 2010, 3:53 am by Russ Bensing
  First this:  On Tuesday, in State v. [read post]