Disabled in Action v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (2011)
green
· 78 citation events
across 17 courts.
Showing the 42 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201120182026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Mustafa Bostanci v. Nj City University (2012)
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 100 (3d Cir.2011).
green
Jose Montanez v. Paula Price (2025)
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 94 (3d Cir. 2011).12 Section 504, which we interpret in lockstep, must likewise be broadly construed to effectuate its remedial purpose of eliminating disability discrimination wherever federal funds are involved. 29 U.S.C. § 701 (a)-(c); see Yeskey, 118 F.3d at 170 (“Congress has directed that Title II of the ADA be interpreted in a manner consistent with Section 504 . . . .”).
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d Cir. 2011).
Disabled in Action of Pa. v. SEPTA, 635 F.3d 87, 92 (3d Cir.2011).
green
National Security Systems, Inc. v. Iola (2012)
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 92 (3d Cir. 2011) (quotation marks omitted).
quotation marks omitted
green
US Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen (2011)
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 92 (3d Cir.2011) (quoting Melrose Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 613 F.3d 380, 387 (3d Cir.2010)).
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 92 (3d Cir.2011).
green
EARLE REFINING, LLC v. NEW VACUUM TECHNOLOGIES LLC (2024)
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d Cir. 2011)).
green
TAREK HOLDINGS, LLC v. GREG SHOCKLEY (2022)
Rule 19(a) “Under the Federal Rules, a party is ‘necessary’ if, in its absence, (1) the court could not accord complete relief among the existing parties; or (2) the absent party claims an interest relating to the subject matter of the action so that disposing of the action in [its] absence would (i) impair its ability to adequately protect its interest, or (ii) leave an existing party susceptible to a substantial risk of incurring inconsistent obligations.” Disabled in Acti…
quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)
green
SEASHORE ASPHALT CORPORATION v. PIGLIACELLI (2022)
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d Cir. 2011). $240,923.31 owed to Seashore and, and $174,953.93 owed to South State (Sec.
Auth. (“SEPTA”), SEPTA altered only the stairways leading to underground train stations but did not add elevators. 635 F.3d 87, 90-91 (3d Cir. 2011).
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d Cir. 2011)).
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d Cir. 2011)).
green
Mortland v. Montage Mountain Hospitality, LLC (2025)
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).
citation omitted
green
Reschenthaler v. Schmidt (2024)
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d Cir. 2011).
green
Kaper v. Pennsylvania Game Commission (2024)
The regulations define accessibility by distinguishing between existing facilities, i.e., those constructed prior to January 26, 1992, and newly constructed or altered facilities.4 A more lenient standard applies to existing facilities because Congress “does not generally mandate that existing . . . facilities be made accessible.” Disabled in Action of Pa. v. SEPTA, 635 F.3d 87, 92 (3d Cir. 2011).
green
ZABLOTNEY v. WINDBER HOSPITAL, INC. (2024)
Dist. of Philadelphia Bd. of Educ., 587 F.3d 176, 189 (3d Cir. 2009)); Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania v. Southeastern Transportation Authority, 635 F.3d 87, n.5 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Pennsylvania Protection and Advocacy, Inc. vy.
quoting Pennsylvania Protection and Advocacy, Inc. vy. Pennsylvania Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 402 F.3d 374 , 379 n.3 (3d Cir, 2005)
As such, the Court will discuss the causation element under the ADA and RA in turn, i. Has Plaintiff Sufficiently Pled Causation under the ADA? 6 See also Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania v. Southeastern Transportation Authority, 635 F.3d 87, n.5 (3d Cir. 2011) (quoting Pennsylvania Protection and Advocacy, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Dep t of Pub.
quoting Pennsylvania Protection and Advocacy, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Dep t of Pub. Welfare, 402 F.3d 374 , 379 n.3 (3d Cir, 2005)
green
Appolyon, Inc. v. McLean (2024)
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d Cir. 2011).
green
SYSTEM ONE HOLDINGS, LLC v. ACARA SOLUTIONS, INC (2024)
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d Cir. 2011)).
green
BUNTING v. RK MCKNIGHT ROAD, LLC (2023)
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d Cir. 2011)).
green
ADAMS v. DMG PARK, LLC (2023)
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d Cir. 2011)).
green
SPENCER SAVINGS BANK, S.L.A. v. VASTA (2022)
The party seeking to add a necessary party under Rule 19 “bears the burden of showing why an absent party should be joined.” Disabled in Action of Pa. v. SEPTA, 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d Cir. 2011).
green
ANTICO v. RAM PAYMENT, L.L.C. (2022)
Disabled in Action v. SEPTA, 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d Cir. 2011)).
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d Cir. 2011)).
green
HOTALING & CO., LLC v. LY BERDITCHEV CORP. (2021)
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d Cir. 2011)).
green
CALLAS v. CALLAS (2021)
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d Cir. 2011)).
green
MALHAN v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY (2021)
The party seeking to add necessary parties under Rule 19 “bears the burden of showing why an absent party should be joined[.]” Disabled in Action of Pa. v. SEPTA, 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d Cir. 2011).1 1 In his reply papers, Plaintiff seems to abandon Rule 19 and instead attempt to rely on – for the first time - Rule 20 to argue for Mr. Ippolito’s joinder as a Plaintiff.
green
Eaton v. XPO Logistics Worldwide, Inc. (2020)
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d.
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d Cir. 2011).
green
Bus Air, LLC v. Anthony R. Woods (2019)
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d Cir. 2011); see also Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharms., Inc., 629 F. Supp. 2d 338, 346 (D.
green
In Re Josiah T. (2019)
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d Cir. 2011).
green
Williams v. Chicago Transit Authority (2019)
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 92 (3d Cir. 2011)).
green
Williams v. Chicago Transit Authority (2018)
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 92 (3d Cir. 2011) (“[A]lthough it does not generally mandate that existing public transit facilities be made accessible, the ADA does impose specific requirements on public entities which build new facilities or make ‘alterations’ to existing facilities.”); 49 C.F.R. § 37.61 (providing that a public entity is not required “to make structural changes to existing facilities in order to make the facilities accessible by individuals who use wheelchairs, unles…
“[A]lthough it does not generally mandate that existing public transit facilities be made accessible, the ADA does impose specific requirements on public entities which build new facilities or make ‘alterations’ to existing facilities.”
Br. at .15-16 (citing Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 635 F.3d 87, 94 (3d Cir.2011)).
green
Incubadora Mexicana, SA de CV v. Zoetis, Inc. (2015)
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d Cir.2011). 2.
green
Rodriguez v. Barrita, Inc. (2014)
Authority, 635 F.3d 87, 91-94 (3d Cir.2011) (under ADAAG guidelines, complete replacement of stairway or inoperative escalator is considered “remodeling, renovation, rehabilitation [or] reconstruction” that affects “usability,” even absent “major structural alterations”); Regents of Mercersburg College v. Republic Franklin Ins.
green
Marvin v. Pflueger. (2012)
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 101 (3d Cir.2011).
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 94 (3d Cir.2011).
green
Slater v. Hoffman-La Roche Inc. (2011)
Auth., 635 F.3d 87, 97 , 2011 WL 522947, at *8 (3d Cir.2011).
green
Harmon v. Department of Finance (2023)
See Disabled in Action of Pa. v. SEPTA, 635 F.3d 87, 97 (3d Cir. 2011).
green
Bronx Independent Living v. Metropolitan Transp. (2019)
See id. at 93-94 .