Legal Opinion

Luther v. Compton

Tennessee Supreme Court

Decided November 22, 1999PublishedCited by 172 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

BIRCH, Justice.

I

We granted review in this case to determine if the plaintiff should be allowed to conduct additional discovery on his claim that the defendants 1 were “deliberately] indifferen[t]” to his serious medical needs. In addition, we will consider whether the plaintiffs 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and negligence claims were properly dismissed pursuant to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Because we conclude that the plaintiffs assertions of deliberate indifference do not state an independent cause of action but are, instead, part of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim, we reverse only…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Estelle v. GambleSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Farmer v. BrennanSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  3. Gregg v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Byrd v. HallTennessee Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Carvell v. BottomsTennessee Supreme Court · 1995

3Cited by172 opinions

  1. Church v. PeralesCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2000
  2. Green v. GreenTennessee Supreme Court · 2009
  3. CAO Holdings, Inc. v. TrostTennessee Supreme Court · 2010
  4. Myrtle Robinson v. Baptist Memorial HospitalCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2014
  5. C. Wesley Fowler as Administrator Ad Litem of the Estate of Frank Jackson v. City of MemphisCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 2016

167 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API