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.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 86 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 Antonio Pearson v. Prison Health Service.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Antonio Pearson v. Prison Health Service Anchor | green | “a plaintiff must make (1) a subjective showing that 'the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his or her medical needs' and (2) an objective showing that 'those needs were serious.” | 51 |
| 2 | Donald Parkell v. Carl Danberg | green | “where the prison official (1) knows of a prisoner's need for medical treatment but intentionally refuses to provide it; (2) delays necessary medical treatment based on a non-medical reason; or (3) prevents a prisoner from receiving needed or recommended medical treatment.” | 21 |
| 3 | Isaac Mitchell v. Jeffrey Beard | green | “a medical need is serious if it 'has been diagnosed by a physician as requiring treatment,' or if it's so obvious that a lay person would easily recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention.” | 8 |
| 4 | Juan Diaz, Jr. v. Warden Lewisburg USP | green | “involvement in the matter consisted of anything more than, at most, receiving letters from diaz expressing his dissatisfaction with the medical care he was receiving” | 6 |
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.