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 50 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 As GUARDIAN AD LITEM OF v. GRACE OLIVA.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | As GUARDIAN AD LITEM OF v. GRACE OLIVA Anchor | green | “contemporaneous knowledge of the offending incident or knowledge of a prior pattern of similar incidents.” | 26 |
| 2 | Maldonado v. Terhune | green | “the severity of the medical problems, the potential for harm if the medical care is denied or delayed and whether any such harm actually resulted from the lack of medical attention.” | 15 |
| 3 | Atkinson v. Taylor | green | “one that is so obvious that a lay person would recognize the necessity for a doctor's attention” | 9 |
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.