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 58 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 Correa v. Hospital San Francisco.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Correa v. Hospital San Francisco Anchor | green | “the essence of this requirement is that there be some screening procedure, and that it be administered even-handedly.” | 28 |
| 2 | Correa v. Hospital San Francisco | green | “reasonably calculated to identify critical medical conditions that may be afflicting symptomatic patients and provides that level of screening uniformly to all those who present substantially similar complaints.” | 23 |
| 3 | Ramos-Cruz v. Centro Medico Del Turabo | green | “refusing to treat patients with emergency conditions but no medical insurance.” | 7 |
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.