Humphrey v. Lane
Ohio Supreme Court
728 N.E.2d 1039 (2000)
- Written by Deanna Curl, JD
Facts
Humphrey (plaintiff) was a prison guard in a state prison. As part of his religious practice, Humphrey wore his hair long. Under the prison’s uniform and grooming policy, prison guards were required to maintain short hair. After the prison initiated disciplinary proceedings against Humphrey for violation of the grooming policy, Humphrey sought declaratory and injunctive relief in the trial court alleging that the grooming policy violated the free-exercise clause of the Ohio Constitution. The trial court entered declaratory and injunctive relief for Humphrey after finding that allowing Humphrey to wear his hair pinned under his cap was a less restrictive means to further the state’s goals of maintaining a tightly controlled prison environment. The appellate court reversed, and Humphrey appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pfeifer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
