Dong v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “a pretrial detainee’s right to adequate medical care and freedom from deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs was clearly established” at the time of the events in question
• declining to “desert its ruling in Scinto,” and holding that the constitutional right in question in a case involving a pretrial detainee “is appropriately defined as a pretrial detainee’s right to adequate medical care and freedom from deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs”
• “It is well established that this court does not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, absent exceptional circumstances.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “It is well established that this court does not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal, absent exceptional circumstances.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[A] prisoner’s right to adequate medical care and freedom from deliberate indifference to medical needs has been clearly established by the Supreme Court and this Circuit since at least 1976.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).