Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Campbell v. Mincey

413 F. Supp. 16 (1975)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...

Campbell v. Mincey

United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

413 F. Supp. 16 (1975)

Facts

In the early morning of March 21, 1974, Hattie Mae Campbell (plaintiff) arrived at the Marshall County Hospital (the hospital) with labor contractions. A hospital nurse observed that Campbell’s contractions were occurring every five minutes and that her water had not broken. In accordance with the hospital’s policy requiring that a hospital physician authorize the nonemergency admittance of a patient, the nurse told Campbell to go to the hospital where she had received her prenatal care and confirmed with the emergency room physician that this was the correct course of action. The hospital had enacted this policy because no physicians employed by the hospital worked between 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. During this time, the emergency room doctors were associated with the University of Tennessee rather than with the hospital. By requiring that a hospital physician authorize nonemergency admittances, the hospital could ensure that there would be a hospital physician available for any follow-ups or additional treatment after the night shift. Campbell followed the nurse’s instructions and left the hospital. Campbell then gave birth in the hospital’s parking lot. Although Campbell lacked any medical assistance during the birth, neither she nor her baby suffered any injuries. Campbell filed an action in federal district court against the hospital’s board of trustees, administrator, chief of staff, and director of nursing (collectively, the hospital personnel) (defendants). Campbell claimed that the hospital’s policy violated common tort law and her equal-protection rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Campbell claimed that she was not admitted into the hospital because of her race and her indigent status but offered no evidence to support her allegations. The district court reviewed the case.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Smith, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 605,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 605,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 33,800 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership