green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
11.7 score
“the 10 thrust of the rehabilitation act is to require access for handicapped persons to employment and 11 federal programs.”
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Logan v. Matveevskii
But see Rose v. U.S. Postal Serv., 774 F.2d 1355, 1363 (9th Cir.1984) (“Because this case was dismissed at the pleadings stage, we cannot determine whether plaintiffs could prevail on their claims under the Rehabilitation Act as to buildings that are not currently subject to alteration under the Barriers Act.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Vasquez v. Washington Department of Veterans Affairs
the 10 thrust of the rehabilitation act is to require access for handicapped persons to employment and 11 federal programs.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cooke v. United States Bureau of Prisons
In opposition to this conclusion, plaintiffs cite Rose v. United States Postal Service, 774 F.2d 1355, 1356-57, 1361-62 (9th Cir.1984), for the proposition that they may file a private cause of action under the ABA without first exhausting the ABA’s administrative process.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Poynter v. United States
ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS ACT CLAIM The Architectural Barriers Act (“Barriers Act”) was enacted by Congress in 1968 *561 “to insure that all public buildings constructed in the future by or on behalf of the federal government or with loans or grants from the federal government are designed and constructed in such a way that they will be accessible to and usable by the physically handicapped.” Rose v. United States Postal Service, 774 F.2d 1355, 1358 (9th Cir.1984) (citations omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Accessibility Guidelines and Federal Lease Renewals
(7×)
also: Cited "see"
Wisner did not provide any further analysis explaining or supporting this assertion. 118 Accessibility Guidelines and Federal Lease Renewals whether leasing or alteration is the event that triggers the Govern ment’s duty under the Act. 774 F.2d at 1356-57 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of Labor, Petitioner-Cross v. Phoenix Roofing, Inc., Respondent-Cross v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission
Cf. Rose v. United States Postal Serv., 774 F.2d 1355, 1363-64 (9th Cir.1984) (EAJA application requires a *1209 ruling from the district court in the first instance); see also Ashton v. Pierce, 580 F.Supp. 440, 441 (D.C.Cir.1984) (district court rules on EAJA application for costs and expenses incurred in both the district court and the court of appeals).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. George Hoff
See Rose v. United States Postal Service, 774 F.2d 1355 , 1360-61 n. 14 (9th Cir.1984) (finding disjunctive statute containing list of offenses whose last two items are separated by an “or”).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Western Nat'l Assurance Co. v. Robert Wargacki
See, e.g., Rose v. U.S. Postal Serv., 774 F.2d 1355 , 1360 n.14 (9th Cir. 1984).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
LaPierre v. Callahan
See e.g., Hendrickson v. Sec. of Health and Human Services, 765 F.2d 747 (8th Cir.1985), vacated, 774 F.2d 1355 (8th Cir.1985) (judgment vacated pursuant to settlement) and Grigg v. Finch, 418 F.2d 661 (6th Cir.1969).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Gordon
See, e.g., Hendrickson v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 774 F.2d 1355 (8th Cir. 1985).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
11 soc.sec.rep.ser. 162, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 16,386 Glenn L. Hendrickson
v.
Secretary of Health and Human Services
v.
Secretary of Health and Human Services
84-5126.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Oct 23, 1985.
774 F.2d 1355
Cited by 6 opinions | Published
11 Soc.Sec.Rep.Ser. 162, Unempl.Ins.Rep. CCH 16,386
Glenn L. HENDRICKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 84-5126.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
Oct. 23, 1985.
ORDER
1
The joint motion filed by the parties pursuant to their Settlement Agreement is hereby granted. In accordance therewith, this Court's June 26, 1985 judgment, decision, and opinion, 765 F.2d 747, are vacated as moot under United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39-40, 71 S.Ct. 104, 106-07, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950), in light of the Settlement Agreement. The case is remanded to the district court for vacation of its decision as moot under United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39-40, 71 S.Ct. 104, 106-07, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950), in light of the Settlement Agreement. Mandate is to issue forthwith.