5 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss.green2 sentences2022“Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet,” and without a showing “that a county employee acted with subjective deliberate indifference, the county cannot be held liable for an episodic act or omission.” Rocha, 419 S.W.3d at 378 -79 (citing Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006); Flores v. County of Hardeman, 124 F.3d 736 , 739 (5th Cir.1997)). 8 A condition-of-confinement claim is analyzed under a “reasonable-relationship” standard, meaning that “a pretrial detainee cannot be subjected to conditions or restrictions that are not reasonably related to a legit 2010A condition of confinement claim “is a constitutional attack ‘on general conditions, practices, rules[,] or restrictions of pretrial confinement.’ ” Flores, 124 F.3d at 738 (quoting Hare, 74 F.3d at 644). | 1 | 5 |
Bell v. Wolfishgreen2 sentences2022“Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet,” and without a showing “that a county employee acted with subjective deliberate indifference, the county cannot be held liable for an episodic act or omission.” Rocha, 419 S.W.3d at 378 -79 (citing Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006); Flores v. County of Hardeman, 124 F.3d 736 , 739 (5th Cir.1997)). 8 A condition-of-confinement claim is analyzed under a “reasonable-relationship” standard, meaning that “a pretrial detainee cannot be subjected to conditions or restrictions that are not reasonably related to a legit 2022However, the Fifth Circuit explained that the use of different standards in the two kinds of claims “does not scale back the constitutional rights of pretrial detainees” “because a proper application of Bell’s reasonable-relationship test is functionally equivalent to a deliberate indifference inquiry.” Id. at 643 . 17 Appellants pled that at the time of his stop, arrest, booking, and confinement, Atilano “was in an Acute Drugged State and in need of medical assistance” and that he requested medical attention but was ignored by jail personnel. | 1 | 1 |
Gobert v. Caldwellgreen1 sentence2022“Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet,” and without a showing “that a county employee acted with subjective deliberate indifference, the county cannot be held liable for an episodic act or omission.” Rocha, 419 S.W.3d at 378 -79 (citing Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006); Flores v. County of Hardeman, 124 F.3d 736 , 739 (5th Cir.1997)). 8 A condition-of-confinement claim is analyzed under a “reasonable-relationship” standard, meaning that “a pretrial detainee cannot be subjected to conditions or restrictions that are not reasonably related to a legit | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Flores v. County of Hardeman, Tex.
green
2 sentences2022“Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet,” and without a showing “that a county employee acted with subjective deliberate indifference, the county cannot be held liable for an episodic act or omission.” Rocha, 419 S.W.3d at 378 -79 (citing Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006); Flores v. County of Hardeman, 124 F.3d 736 , 739 (5th Cir.1997)). 8 A condition-of-confinement claim is analyzed under a “reasonable-relationship” standard, meaning that “a pretrial detainee cannot be subjected to conditions or restrictions that are not reasonably related to a legit 2010A condition of confinement claim “is a constitutional attack ‘on general conditions, practices, rules[,] or restrictions of pretrial confinement.’ ” Flores, 124 F.3d at 738 (quoting Hare, 74 F.3d at 644). | 5 | 2007–2022 |
Michelle Rocha, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Raymond Dwayne Bingle v. Potter County, Texas
green
1 sentence2022“Deliberate indifference is an extremely high standard to meet,” and without a showing “that a county employee acted with subjective deliberate indifference, the county cannot be held liable for an episodic act or omission.” Rocha, 419 S.W.3d at 378 -79 (citing Gobert v. Caldwell, 463 F.3d 339, 346 (5th Cir. 2006); Flores v. County of Hardeman, 124 F.3d 736 , 739 (5th Cir.1997)). 8 A condition-of-confinement claim is analyzed under a “reasonable-relationship” standard, meaning that “a pretrial detainee cannot be subjected to conditions or restrictions that are not reasonably related to a legit | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.