Difference between revisions of "Nasir v. Morgan"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
FernoKlump (talk | contribs) m |
DavidB4-bot (talk | contribs) (→top: clean up & uniformity) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
This decision is often cited for its statement that an appellate court will uphold a district court's grant of a summary judgment motion on any basis so long as that basis was previously presented to the district court. ''Id.'' at 368. | This decision is often cited for its statement that an appellate court will uphold a district court's grant of a summary judgment motion on any basis so long as that basis was previously presented to the district court. ''Id.'' at 368. | ||
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:Circuit Cases]] |
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:First Amendment]] |
| − | [[ | + | [[Category:Appellate Procedure]] |
Latest revision as of 06:57, June 27, 2016
In Nasir v. Morgan, 350 F.3d 366 (3d Cir. 2003), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a ban on correspondence by inmates with former inmates. The Court rejected a First Amendment challenge to that rule, noting that the ban was justified by security issues.
This decision is often cited for its statement that an appellate court will uphold a district court's grant of a summary judgment motion on any basis so long as that basis was previously presented to the district court. Id. at 368.