Ott v. De Bardeleben Coal Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim involving continuing failures to treat, unlike a medical malpractice claim based on a discrete act of malpractice, constitutes a continuous violation
• finding that an Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claim for failure to treat an inmate’s hernia, a continuing violation, accrued when the inmate left the prison
• holding that an inmate’s 42 U.S.C. section 1983 claim for a continuing denial of medical care accrued for limitations purposes on the last date officials refused to treat his condition or on the date the inmate left jail
• stating that “[t] oiling interrupts the statute of limitations after it has begun to run”
• noting that every day that the defendants had “prolonged [an inmate’s] agony by not treating his painful condition marked a fresh infliction of punishment”
• explaining that “[e]very day that they prolonged his agony by not treating his painful condition marked a fresh infliction of punishment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).