Maddox v. Love
| Docket Number | 10-1139 |
| Decision Date | 24 August 2011 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
1005 cases
-
Molina v. Latronico
...departments is named as the defendant is proscribed by the Eleventh Amendment.") (citations omitted); see also, e.g. , Maddox v. Love , 655 F.3d 709, 716 (7th Cir. 2011). Here, Molina is suing both Latronico and David in their official capacities as Illinois State Troopers, and there is no ......
-
Rinaldi v. United States
...Prison , 802 F.3d 1205, 1215 (11th Cir. 2015) ; Hammett v. Cofield , 681 F.3d 945, 947 (8th Cir. 2012) (per curiam); Maddox v. Love , 655 F.3d 709, 722 (7th Cir. 2011) ; Reed-Bey v. Pramstaller , 603 F.3d 322, 325 (6th Cir. 2010) ; Ross v. County of Bernalillo , 365 F.3d 1181, 1186 (10th Ci......
-
Browning v. Flexsteel Indus., Inc.
...to relief,” which is sufficient to provide “fair notice” of the claim and its basis. Id. (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)); Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir.2011) (citations omitted); see Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (quoting Fe......
-
Schmucker v. Johnson Controls, Inc.
...entitled to relief,” sufficient to provide “fair notice” of the claim and its basis. Id. (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) ); Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 718 (7th Cir.2011) (internal citations omitted); see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (20......
Get Started for Free
5 books & journal articles
-
PANDEMIC RULES: COVID-19 AND THE PRISON LITIGATION REFORM ACT'S EXHAUSTION REQUIREMENT.
...by an untimely filing of a grievance if it is accepted and decided on the merits by the appropriate prison authority."); Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 722 (7th Cir. 2011) ("Where prison officials address an inmate's grievance on the merits without rejecting it on procedural grounds, the gri......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...prison prevented Muslim prisoner from participating in religious holiday without rational penological justification); Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709, 719-20 (7th Cir. 2011) (possible equal protection violation if prison officials singled out 1 religion’s services for cancelation due to budg......
-
Part two: case summaries by major topic.
...the directive was a universal sick leave policy for all employees, disabled or not. (City of Columbus, Ohio) U.S. Appeals Court Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 2011). BUDGET An inmate filed a pro se [section] 1983 complaint against a prison chaplain and prison wardens, claiming that ......
-
Part two: case summaries by major topic.
...substantially burden the religious rights of the prisoner under RLUIPA. (Pocahontas State Correctional Center, Virginia) U.S. Appeals Court Maddox v. Love, 655 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. OPPORTUNITY TO PRACTICE 2011). An inmate filed a pro se [section] RLUIPA-Religious Land 1983 complaint against a......
Get Started for Free
