In the Interest of J.D., a Child v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a jailer was not 11 Case: 20-11147 Date Filed: 09/15/2020 Page: 12 of 23 deliberately indifferent to the risk of a fatal drug overdose in part because the jailer “observed [the inmate] ‘laughing and talking’ with his cellmates”
• explaining that each defendant's subjective awareness of a risk of harm must be assessed individually
• concluding that plaintiff failed to show that the jailer ignored a serious medical need in part because he “checked on the inmates at hourly intervals, and no evidence indicates that the inmates said anything about [the inmate’s] condition during one of those checks”
• finding that defendants did not deliberately ignore a serious medical condition that was obvious or known to them because none of them knew or suspected that plaintiff had ingested Du-ragesic patches or a potentially lethal combination of drugs
• noting “[e]ach individual [d]efendant must be judged separately and on the basis of what that person knows.” (alterations added; footnote call number omitted)
• noting “imputed or collective knowledge cannot serve as the basis for a claim of deliberate indifference” and “[e]ach individual Defendant must be judged separately and on the basis of what that person knows”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).