EXPOSURE TO SECONDHAND SMOKE IN PRISON NOT ‘CRUEL AND UNUSUAL’ Richardson v. Spurlock | Secondary Sources | Westlaw

EXPOSURE TO SECONDHAND SMOKE IN PRISON NOT ‘CRUEL AND UNUSUAL’ Richardson v. Spurlock | Secondary Sources | Westlaw

View on Westlaw or start a FREE TRIAL today, EXPOSURE TO SECONDHAND SMOKE IN PRISON NOT ‘CRUEL AND UNUSUAL’ Richardson v. Spurlock, Secondary Sources
Skip Page Header

EXPOSURE TO SECONDHAND SMOKE IN PRISON NOT ‘CRUEL AND UNUSUAL’ Richardson v. Spurlock

16 No. 21 ANTILR 8Andrews Tobacco Industry Litigation Reporter (Approx. 3 pages)

EXPOSURE TO SECONDHAND SMOKE IN PRISON NOT ‘CRUEL AND UNUSUAL’ Richardson v. Spurlock

16 No. 21 ANTILR 8Andrews Tobacco Industry Litigation Reporter (Approx. 3 pages)

16 No. 21 Andrews Tobacco Indus. Litig. Rep. 8
Andrews Tobacco Industry Litigation Reporter
September 7, 2001
Environmental Tobacco Smoke
Copyright (c) 2001 Andrews Publications

EXPOSURE TO SECONDHAND SMOKE IN PRISON NOT ‘CRUEL AND UNUSUAL’

Richardson v. Spurlock

An inmate in a Louisiana state prison has not raised a valid claim against the prison for exposing him to secondhand smoke and the district court properly dismissed his claim, the Fifth Circuit has held. Richardson v. Spurlock et al., No. 00-3-810,...
End of Document© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.