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 83 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 David Williams v. James Liefer, Brent Hoffman, and James Massey.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | David Williams v. James Liefer, Brent Hoffman, and James Massey Anchor | green | “in cases where prison officials delayed rather than denied medical assistance to an inmate, courts have required the plaintiff to offer 'verifying medical evidence' that the delay (rather than the inmate's underlying condition) caused some degree of harm.” | 36 |
| 2 | David Williams v. James Liefer, Brent Hoffman, and James Massey | green | “a plaintiff must offer medical evidence that tends to confirm or corroborate a claim that the delay was detrimental.” | 24 |
| 3 | Alma Glisson v. Correctional Medical Services | green | “institutional policies are themselves deliberately indifferent to the quality of care provided.” | 23 |
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.