Benter v. Peck

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that even denial of prescription eyeglasses can violate the Eighth Amendment when the eyeglasses represent a serious medical need
• finding a prolonged and complete denial of corrective lenses sufficiently serious where plaintiff was effectively legally blind without them
• denial of prescription eyeglasses can violate the Eighth Amendment when the eyeglasses represent a serious medical need
• denial of prescription eyeglasses can violate the Eighth Amendment when the eyeglasses represent a serious medical need
• vision of 20/400 was a serious medical need because eyesight fell within definition of blindness and plaintiff was unable to work or function in general population without glasses
• serious medical need existed where plaintiff’s uncorrected vision was 20/400, which made him legally blind, and he could not work or function in general prison population without glasses

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).