green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
30.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1999 ·
…here may be times a patient can be treated in the community, and others whe an institutional placement is necessary.
at p. 903
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Olmstead v. L.C.
(20×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
here may be times a patient can be treated in the community, and others whe an institutional placement is necessary.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Rolland v. Cellucci
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
where, as here, the state confines an individual with a disability in an institutionalized setting when a community placement is appropriate, the state has violated the core principle underlying the ada's integration mandate.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Berg v. FL Dept. of Labor
the ada does not only mandate that individuals with disabilities be treated the same as persons without such disabilities.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
H.A., by her guardians L.A. and S.A. v. Hochul
And “the legislative history [of the ADA] makes clear that Congress considered the provision of segregated services to individuals with disabilities a form of discrimination prohibited by the ADA.” L.C. by Zimring v. Olmstead, 138 F.3d 893, 898 (11th Cir. 1998), aff’d in part, vacated in part, remanded sub nom.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shotz v. City of Plantation, FL
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Shotz v. Cates, 256 F.3d 1077 , 1079 n. 2 (11th Cir.2001); Zimring v. Olmstead, 138 F.3d 893, 897 (11th Cir.1998), aff'd in part and vacated in part on other grounds, 527 U.S. 581 , 119 S.Ct. 2176 , 144 L.Ed.2d 540 (1999); see also Helen L. v. DiDario, 46 F.3d 325, 331-32 (3d Cir.1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Martin v. Taft
L.C. by Zimring v. Olmstead, 138 F.3d 893, 905 (11th Cir.), cert granted, 525 U.S. 1054, 119 S.Ct. 617 , 142 L.Ed.2d 556 (1998), aff'd in part, vacated in part, and remanded, 527 U.S. 581 , 119 S.Ct. 2176 , 144 L.Ed.2d 540 (1999).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
James Johnson v. K Mart Corporation
(9×)
also: Cited "see"
L.C. v Olmstead, 138 F.3d 893, 896 (11th Cir. 1998), aff'd in part, vacated in part, and remanded by 527 U.S. 581 (1999).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
James Johnson v. K-Mart Corporation
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
L.C. v Olmstead, 138 F.3d 893, 896 (11th Cir. 1998), aff’d in part, vacated in part, and remanded by 527 U.S. 581 (1999).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Ial Aircraft Holding, Inc., a Florida Corporation v. Federal Aviation Administration
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
See Martin v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n, 499 U.S. 144, 156-58 , 111 S.Ct. 1171, 1179 , 113 L.Ed.2d 117 (1991) (distinguishing between administrative adjudications, which constitute agency action, and litigation positions, which are “post hoc rationalizations” of agency actions); cf. Zimring v. Olmstead, 138 F.3d 893, 897 (11th Cir.1998) (finding substantial deference due when Attorney General "consistently adopted” an interpretation of a regulation that comported with a previously-issued interpretation in appendix to regulation); United States Mosaic Tile Co. v. N.L.R.B.…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Heartz v. Morton
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Claims based on the regulation are subject to an affirmative defense if a defendant "can demonstrate that making the modifications [reguired by the regulation] would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity." 28 C.F.R. § 35.130 (b) (7) (emphasis added), see Zimring, 138 F.3d at 904; Helen L ., 46 F.3d at 337 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Heartz v. Morton
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Olmstead, 138 F.3d 893, 904 (11th Cir. 1998), cert. granted, 67 U.S.L.W. 3288 (U.S. Dec. 1 4 , 1998)(No. 98-536); Helen L . v .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kathleen S. v. Department of Public Welfare of Pennsylvania
(2×)
Id. at 896.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gibson v. Bray
Background Viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff Larry Gibson, see L.C. by Zimring v. Olmstead, 138 F.3d 893, 902 (11th Cir.1998), the facts of this case are as follows.
cited
Cited "see"
Thomas v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.
See generally L.C. by Zimring v. Olmstead, 138 F.3d 893 , 895 n. 2 (11th Cir.1998), aff'd in part, vacated in part sub nom., Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see"
Haddad v. Arnold
(2×)
See Olmstead, 527 U.S. at 597-601 , 119 S.Ct. 2176 (affirming the finding of disability-based discrimination in L.C. v. Olmstead, 138 F.3d 893, 897-901 (11th Cir.1998)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Egan v. DeBuono
Welfare v Idell S., 516 US 813 ), a State’s obligation “to provide appropriately integrated services is not absolute as the ADA does not require that [a State] make fundamental alterations in its [Medicaid] program” (supra, at 336; see also, L.C. v Olmstead, 138 F3d 893, 904 ; cert granted 525 US 1054 , amended 525 US 1062 ; Southeastern Community Coll, v Davis, 442 US 397, 410-413 ; Alexander v Choate, 469 US 287, 299-303 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Berg v. Florida Department of Labor & Employment Security, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
(2×)
Compare Johnson v. Thompson, 971 F.2d 1487 , 1494 (10th Cir.1992) (“Without a showing that the non-handicapped received the [benefits] denied to the ‘otherwise qualified’ handicapped, the appellants cannot assert that a violation of section 504 has occurred.”) with L.C. by Zimring v. Olmstead, 138 F.3d 893, 899 (11th Cir.1998) (“The ADA does not only mandate that individuals with disabilities be treated the same as persons without such disabilities.”), cer t. granted, 67 U.S.L.W. 3259 (U.S. Dec. 14, 1998) (No. 98-536).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
L. C.
v.
Olmstead
v.
Olmstead
97-8538.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Apr 8, 1998.
138 F.3d 893
Cited by 7 opinions | Published
L. C., by Johnathan ZIMRING, as guardian ad litem and next friend, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Tommy OLMSTEAD, Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources; et al., Defendants- Appellants.
No. 97-8538
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Dec. 21, 1999.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (No. 1:95-CV-1210-MHS); Marvin H. Shoob, Judge.
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before TJOFLAT and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and PROPST*, Senior District Judge.
v.
Tommy OLMSTEAD, Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources; et al., Defendants- Appellants.
No. 97-8538
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Dec. 21, 1999.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (No. 1:95-CV-1210-MHS); Marvin H. Shoob, Judge.
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before TJOFLAT and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and PROPST*, Senior District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
We remand this case to the district court for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion in Olmstead v. L.C., --- U.S. ----, 119 S.Ct. 2176, 144 L.Ed.2d 540 (1999).
* Honorable Robert B. Propst, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation.