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.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 10 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 Correa v. Hospital San Francisco.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Correa v. Hospital San Francisco Anchor | green | “a hospital fulfills its statutory duty to screen patients in its emergency room if it provides for a screening examination reasonably calculated to identify critical medical conditions that may be afflicting symptomatic patients and provides that level of screening uniformly to …” | 6 |
| 2 | Ramos-Cruz v. Centro Medico Del Turabo | green | “emtala in 1996 in response to claims that hospital emergency rooms were refusing to treat patients with emergency conditions but no medical insurance.” | 2 |
| 3 | Ramos-Cruz v. Centro Medico Del Turabo | green | “in 1996 in response to claims that hospital emergency rooms were refusing to treat patients with emergency conditions but no medical insurance.” | 2 |
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.