Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 147 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Giles v. Kearney.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Giles v. Kearney Anchor | green | “to act with deliberate indifference to serious medical needs is to recklessly disregard a substantial risk of serious harm.” | 58 |
| 2 | United States v. Fayette County, Pennsylvania | green | “where a prisoner has received some medical attention and the dispute is over the adequacy of the treatment, federal courts are generally reluctant to second guess medical judgments and to constitutionalize claims which sound in state tort law.” | 44 |
| 3 | United States v. Fayette County, Pennsylvania | green | “are generally reluctant to second guess medical judgments and to constitutionalize claims which sound in state tort law.” | 15 |
| 4 | Giles v. Kearney | green | “intentionally denied or delayed medical care.” | 15 |
| 5 | Jevon Everett v. Nort | green | “both aware of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists and . . . drew that inference.” | 15 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.