Central Life Insurance v. Vickers

How courts have described this case

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

• noting “the relevant distinction for purposes of the Bane Act is between intentional and unintentional conduct, and ... Shoyoye applies only when the conduct is unintentional”
• holding “a 13 prisoner who successfully proves that prison officials acted or failed to act with deliberate 14 indifference to his medical needs in violation of his constitutional rights … adequately states a 15 claim for relief under the Bane Act”
• exercising discretion to consider \improperly 27 made new arguments in . . . [the] reply brief\ when the non- 28 moving party would not be prejudiced
• finding plaintiffs adequately alleged a 7 Bane Act claim against defendants where decedent’s death resulted from “a purposeful 8 act or failure to respond to a prisoner's pain or possible medical need . . . .”
• “the relevant distinction for purposes of the Bane Act is between intentional and unintentional conduct, and ... Shoyoye applies only when the conduct is unintentional”
• cited with approval in Cornell v. City & County of San Francisco, 17 Cal. 17 App. 5th 766, 802 n.31 (2017)13

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).