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 3 cases, quoted by 9 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 Walter Lojuk v. Marjorie Quandt, Director of the Veterans Administration Hospital.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Walter Lojuk v. Marjorie Quandt, Director of the Veterans Administration Hospital Anchor | green | “compulsory treatment with anti-psychotic drugs may also invade a patient's interest in bodily integrity.” | 3 |
| 2 | Carthan v. Snyder Case No. 16-CV-10444 (In re Flint Water Cases) | green | “their actions represented official policy and flint could be held liable for their conduct insofar as it violated plaintiffs' rights.” | 3 |
| 3 | Carthan v. Snyder (In re Flint Water Cases) | green | “were final decisionmakers for flint with respect to the decision to provide residents with contaminated water.” | 3 |
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.