green
Positive treatment
Hot · 139 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 15×
118.9 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2023–2025 ·
…a complaint may be subject to dismissal if its allegations affirmatively demonstrate that the plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations and fail to raise some basis for tolling
at p. 240
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Rogers v. Ikpo
a complaint may be subject to dismissal if its allegations affirmatively demonstrate that the plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations and fail to raise some basis for tolling
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Desouze v. Williams
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
a complaint may be subject to dismissal if its allegations affirmatively demonstrate that the plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations and fail to raise some basis for tolling
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Hickam IV v. Office of Personnel Management
the ada and the rehabilitation act generally are interpreted in pari materia.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States v. KINDRED HEALTHCARE, INC.
because the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and not a pleading requirement, it is an issue that must be resolved through discovery and summary judgment or trial.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Davis v. Dome
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
a complaint may be subject to dismissal if its allegations affirmatively demonstrate that the plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations and fail to raise some basis for tolling
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Alliance Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA
a suf- ficiently high degree of likelihood
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Willis v. Howard, Jr
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
a complaint may be subject to dismissal if its allegations affirmatively demonstrate that the plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations and fail to raise some basis for tolling
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Crider v. Foust
he plaintiffs have alleged in detail how specific inaccessible sidewalks negatively affect their day-to-day lives . . . . this is sufficient to support their right to sue.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
James v. Smith
because the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense and not a pleading, it is an issue that must be resolved through discovery and summary judgment or trial.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Alkasaji v. James River Insurance Company
complaint may be subject to dismissal if its allegations affirmatively demonstrate that the plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations and fail to raise some basis for tolling.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Hamer v. City of Trinidad
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
continuing to build inaccessible sidewalks without adequate justification would unnecessarily aggravate the social costs congress sought to abate .
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Arce v. La. State
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
ecause congress directed to elucidate title ii with implementing regulations, doj's views at least would 'warrant respect' and might be entitled to even more deference.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Arce v. La. State
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
when confronted with a statutory ambiguity, refer to the responsible agency's reasonable interpretation of that 918 statute.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Cynthia E. Concepción-Bruno, et al. v. Municipality of Vega Alta, et al.
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see, e.g."
a disabled individual need not engage in futile gestures before seeking an injunction; the individual must show only that an inaccessible sidewalk actually affects his activities in some concrete way.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dennis Sharkey v. Eral O'Neal
in selecting texas's personal-injury limitations period, we note that texas has not adopted a general disability discrimination law modeled on title ii or the rehabilitation act.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Application of the Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act to State Institutionalization of Patients with Severe Mental Illness or Disabilities
The same logic extends to Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12134 (b), which Congress drafted to parallel section 504 and “generally [is] interpreted in pari materia,” Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 223 (5th Cir. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hiran Rodriguez v. New Orleans Public Belt Railroad Commission for the Port of New Orleans
See id.; Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 226 (5th Cir. 2011) (defining “public service”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
David Abisai Reyes-Medrano v. Investigator Lopez, City of Edinburg, Jorge Moreno, Sergeant Rodriguez, Daniel Pena, Orlando Garcia, Gustavo Villegas, Angela Villadares, Pablo Juarez, Doctors Hospital at Renaissance, Ltd.
As such, “[c]ourts utilize the same standards in analyzing claims under both the ADA and RA.” /d. (citing Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 223 (Sth Cir. 2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Humberto E. Aguilar v. City of Carrollton, ET AL.
“A complaint is ‘subject to dismissal if its allegations affirmatively demonstrate that the plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations and fail to raise some basis for tolling.’” Jenkins v. Tahmahkera, 151 F.4th 739 , 747 (5th Cir. 2025) (quoting Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 240 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (citing Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007))); accord Doe 1 v. City View Indep.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnny Ray Gaskin v. University of Houston Police Department
Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 237 (5th Cir. 2011).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Shelby Hammer, et al. v. Laura Nodolf, et al.
(3×)
Frame, 657 F.3d at 240.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tony Dewayne Martin #572749 v. Derrick Phelps et al.
The statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that “places the burden of proof on the party pleading it.” Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 239 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Parria v. Cvitanovich
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 240 (5th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hurricane Work L L C v. Querbes & Nelson et al
Under those federal pleading requirements, “a plaintiff is not required to allege that his claims were filed within the applicable statute of limitations.” Frame, 657 F.3d at 239-40.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Robinson v. Grand Cane Enterprises L L C
Under federal pleading requirements, “a plaintiff is not required to allege that his claims were filed within the applicable statute of limitations.” Frame, 657 F.3d at 239-40.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jenkins v. Tahmahkera
A complaint is “subject to dismissal if its allegations affirmatively demonstrate that the plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations and fail to raise some basis for tolling.” Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 240 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Huron v. Natalia Independent School District
Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 223 (5th Cir. 2011); see La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Abbott, 770 F. Supp. 3d 974 , 991 (W.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
J.H. v. Paramount Hospitality, LP
Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 239 (5th Cir. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Millerborg v. Blue Bonnet Trail, LLC
It is true, as Millerborg points out, that “a disabled individual need not engage in futile gestures before seeking an injunction.” See Frame, 657 F.3d at 236.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Castillo v. Garland
Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 223-24 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (Rehabilitation Act and Americans with Disabilities Act are generally interpreted in the same manner).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rodgers v. Hendersonville Parks and Recreation Department
It “is a broad mandate of comprehensive character and sweeping purpose intended to eliminate discrimination against disabled individuals, and to integrate them into the economic and social mainstream of American life.” Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 223 (2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Parker v. State of Texas
Stanley, 464 F.3d at 568 (finding § 1983 actions in Texas are governed by Texas two-year personal injury limitations period); Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 237 (5th Cir. 2011) (same under Title II of the ADA).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Greenwald v. Cantrell
“While the purpose of the ADA is to prevent the discrimination of disabled individuals,” the Fifth Circuit has 9 42 U.S.C. § 12132 . 10 Hale v. King, 642 F.3d 492, 499 (5th Cir. 2011). 11 Windham v. Harris Cnty., 875 F.3d 229, 235 (5th Cir. 2017). 12 Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 225 (5th Cir. 2011). 13 Patrice v. Murphy, 43 F. Supp. 2d 1156, 1160 (W.D.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bays v. New Braunfels Police Department
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Brockman v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 397 F. App’x 18 , 21–22 (5th Cir. 2010); Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 237 (5th Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ellerbee v. State of Louisiana Division of Administration, Office of Technology Services
(2×)
Solutions, Inc., 365 F.3d 353 , 361 (5th Cir. 2004)). 49 Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 , 106 S.Ct. 2932 , 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986)). 50 Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 223 (5th Cir. 2011)(en banc)(citing PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 675 , 121 S.Ct. 1879 , 149 L.Ed.2d 904 (2001); Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tamborello v. Town of Highland Park, Texas
Safety, 63 F.4th 466 , 470 (5th Cir. 2023) (per curiam) (quoting Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 223 (5th Cir. 2011)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Salamah v. UT Southwestern Health Systems
Like Title II, § 504 provides that no qualified individual with a disability “shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” The ADA and the Rehabilitation Act generally are interpreted in pari materia. [][] Congress has instructed courts that “nothing in [the ADA] shall be construed to apply a lesser - 10 - standard than the standards applied under title V [i.e., § 504] of the Rehabilitation Act . . . or the regulatio…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kakoolaki v. Galveston Independant School District
Kakoolaki Has Direct Evidence of Discrimination “The ADA is a broad mandate of comprehensive character and sweeping purpose intended to eliminate discrimination against disabled individuals, and to integrate them into the economic and social mainstream of American life.” Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 223 (5th Cir. 2011) (quotation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Greenwald v. Cantrell
As the Fifth Circuit has explained “[t]he ADA does not define the ‘services, programs, or activities of a public entity.’ The Rehabilitation Act, however, defines a ‘program or activity’ as ‘all of the operations of . . . a local government.’”50 This Court finds that casting the registration requirements for sex offenders “as a service or activity the benefit of which a disabled person has been denied strains the statutory language to, if not past, the breaking point.”51 Indeed, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint does not set forth any benefit of SORNA that she is being denied…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
L. B. Benon Family Limited Partnership v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
Tex. Jan. 18, 2022) (quoting Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 240 (5th Cir. 2011)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas v. Fontenot
Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 238 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
X.D. v. Totally Kids Learning Center
Alternatively, a plaintiff may establish standing by alleging that a Rehabilitation Act violation “actually affects his activities in some concrete way.” Cummings, 2019 WL 227411 , at *3 (first citing Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 235 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (holding that plaintiffs had standing to seek injunction, because they alleged that inaccessible sidewalks forced them to take longer routes); and then citing Deutsch, 882 F.3d at 174 (holding that plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunction for ADA violation, because plaintiff only visited defendant’s business once, s…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mosure v. Southwest Airlines, Co.
(2×)
Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 238 (Sth Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jenkins v. Tahmahkera
A. Statute of Limitations Accrual Date “[A] complaint may be subject to dismissal if its allegations affirmatively demonstrate that the Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations and fail to raise some basis for tolling.” Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 240 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson v. Texas Department Of Criminal Justice
See Pa. Dep’t of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 213 (1998) (holding that Title II of the ADA applies to prisoner claims concerning the services and programs available to inmates); Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 237 (Sth Cir. 2011) (en banc) (holding that Texas’s two- year limitations period applies to claims under Title IJ of the ADA).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hernandez v. West Texas Treasures Estate Sales, LLC
Given this reality, it is not speculative or hypothetical for a typical ADA plaintiff to 28 Deutsch, 721 F.App’x. at 338. 29 See Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 221 (5th Cir. 2011). 30 See Betancourt, 732 F.Supp.2d at 696–97 (Mobility impaired plaintiff alleged that a Macy’s store had “architectural barriers” which impeded her ability to access the store); see also Langer, 57 F.4th at 1090–91 (Paraplegic plaintiff alleged a lack of van-accessible parking spaces); see also Houston, 733 F.3d at 1325–26 (Paralyzed plaintiff alleged a lack of designated disabled use parking…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Holcim-MAMR, Inc. v. Common Construction, LLC
Tex. Jan. 18, 2022) (quoting Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 240 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc)). 54 Cutrer, 308 F. App’x at 820 (quoting Clark v. Amoco Prod.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cummings v. Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America
P. 56(c)(1). 6 Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 223 (5th Cir. 2011). 7 Id.; 29 U.S.C. § 794 (a). 8 Melton v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 391 F.3d 669, 676 (5th Cir. 2004). 9 Cadena v. El Paso Cnty., 946 F.3d 717, 723 (5th Cir. 2020). must also be reasonable, meaning that it does not impose undue financial or administrative burdens or fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.”10 A reasonable accommodation requires public entities to afford disabled individuals “equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same lev…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeffery v. City of Houston
Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 237 (Sth Cir. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bravo v. Kendall
Although the Rehabilitation Act provides no limitation period itself, courts generally “borrow the most analogous period from state law.” Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 237 (5th Cir. 2011).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Richard FRAME; Wendell Decker; Scott Updike; J N, a minor, by his next friend and mother Gabriela Castro; Mark Hamman; Joey Salas, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CITY OF ARLINGTON, A Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
v.
CITY OF ARLINGTON, A Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
08-10630.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jan 27, 2011.
Jones, Chief Judge, and King, Jolly, Davis, Smith, Garza, Benavides, Stewart, Dennis, Clement, Prado, Owen, Elrod, Southwick and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (1)
Miguel M. de la O (argued), de la O, Marko, Magolnick & Leyton, Miami, FL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Edwin Armstrong Price Voss, Jr. (argued), Brown & Hofmeister, L.L.P., Richardson, TX, Denise V. Wilkerson, Asst. City Atty., Arlington, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.
Dirk Christian Phillips, Jessica Dunsay Silver, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Rights Div., App. Section, Washington, DC, for U.S., Amicus Curiae.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and KING, JOLLY, DAVIS, SMITH, GARZA, BENAVIDES, STEWART, DENNIS, CLEMENT, PRADO, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
A member of the court having requested a poll on the petition for rehearing en banc, and a majority of the circuit judges in regular active service and not disqualified having voted in favor,
It is ordered that this cause shall be reheard by the court en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of supplemental briefs.