Eighth Circuit
Williams v. York, 891 F.3d 701, 707 (8th Cir. 2018) (“An inmate’s right to treatment for serious and painful dental conditions has been clearly-established for more than three decades.”).
Dadd v. Anoka County, 827 F.3d 749, 757 (8th Cir. 2016) (stating that “the defendants had fair warning about the unconstitutionality of a failure to provide pain medication for serious dental conditions in particular”).
Bailey v. County of Kittson, CIV 07-1939 ADM/RLE, 2008 WL 906349, at *13 (D. Minn. Mar. 31, 2008) (“At this stage of the litigation, there is a genuine issue of material fact whether Plaintiff had an objectively serious dental need and whether the Kittson County Individual Defendants were deliberately indifferent to that need.”).
Boyd v. Knox, 47 F.3d 966, 969 (8th Cir. 1995) (“A three-week delay in dental care, coupled with knowledge of the inmate-patient’s suffering, can support a finding of an Eighth Amendment violation under section 1983.”).
Kinney v. Kalfus, 25 F.3d 633, 634 (8th Cir. 1994) (stating that “the refusal to provide follow-up dental care for a three [week] period, despite the knowledge that an inmate is suffering severe pain, could support a section 1983 violation”).