Tonya Weinberg Gilmore v. Pam Hodges

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 alleged deprivation of a hearing aid for two years could violate the Eighth Amendment
• “[W]e look only to binding precedent—holdings of cases drawn from the United States Supreme Court, this Court, or the highest court of the state where the events took place.”
• “We have . . . long held that deprivation of needed eyeglasses or prosthetic devices stated an Eighth Amendment violation because the unavailability of eyeglasses or prostheses may lead to ‘severe harm.’”
• courts “may exercise our discretion to decide ‘which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand.’” (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).