stating that "a single incident of being inadvertently served pork does not deprive [an inmate] of the right to the free exercise of his faith"
Summary of this case from Lee v. FoxwellNo. 714CD10.
March 9, 2011.
Appeal from the Northumberland County CV-10-61-1 #DQ-1169.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania Decisions Without Published opinions Vacated and Remanded.
stating that "a single incident of being inadvertently served pork does not deprive [an inmate] of the right to the free exercise of his faith"
Summary of this case from Lee v. Foxwellstating that "a single incident of being inadvertently served pork does not deprive [an inmate] of the right to the free exercise of his faith"
Summary of this case from Nutter v. Foxwellstating that "a single incident of being inadvertently served pork does not deprive [an inmate] of the right to the free exercise of his faith"
Summary of this case from Nureni v. Marylandstating that "a single incident of being inadvertently served pork does not deprive [an inmate] of the right to the free exercise of his faith"
Summary of this case from Mackell-Bey v. Troxellstating that "a single incident of being inadvertently served pork does not deprive [an inmate] of the right to the free exercise of his faith"
Summary of this case from Drummond v. Foxwellstating that "a single incident of being inadvertently served pork does not deprive [an inmate] of the right to the free exercise of his faith"
Summary of this case from Cates v. FoxwellFull title:Johnson v. Varano
Court:Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Date published: Mar 9, 2011
"While being provided with diet trays containing pork for one meal . . . may have annoyed and inconvenienced…
Nutter v. FoxwellThe evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, shows that no First Amendment violation…