2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 6 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 Holcomb v. Monahan.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Holcomb v. Monahan Anchor | green | “the congressional purpose behind the enactment of emtala supports the conclusion that this language only requires a hospital to provide indigent patients with a medical screening similar to one which they would provide any other patient” | 3 |
| 2 | Franklin D. Vickers, of the Estate of Martin Wade Vickers v. Nash General Hospital, Incorporated James R. Hughes, M.D. | green | “emtala requires that when a hospital 'determines that individual has an emergency medical condition,' the hospital must provide for such further examination and treatment 'as may be required to stabilize the condition” | 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.