King v. Kramer

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that police officers were not responsible for administering medical care and were entitled to defer to the judgment of health pro- fessionals
• ruling that a county could not shield itself from liability by contracting out its duty to provide medical services
• holding that failure to provide detainee with full doses of medication over a four-day period when risk of withdrawal was known was sufficient to deny summary judgment
• holding that a county could not “shield itself from § 1983 liability by contracting out its duty to provide medical services ... [because] the private company’s policy becomes that of the County if the County delegates final decision-making authority to it”
• reiterating that non-medical officers \were 'entitled to defer to the judgment of jail health professionals so long as [they] did not ignore [the prisoner]'\
• finding that a broad range of medical conditions are sufficiently objectively serious, including a dislocated finger and broken bones

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).