49 C.F.R. § 27.77
Recipients of Essential Air Service subsidies
Any air carrier receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation under the Essential Air Service Program shall, as a condition of receiving such assistance, comply with applicable requirements of this part and applicable section 504 and ACAA rules of the Department of Transportation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1982–2002 · leading case: Rhode Island Handicapped Action Comm. v. Rhode Island Pub. Transit Auth., 549 F. Supp. 592 (D.R.I. 1982).
Rhode Island Handicapped Action Comm. v. Rhode Island Pub. Transit Auth., 549 F. Supp. 592 (D.R.I. 1982). “49 C.F.R. § 27.77 (1981). The determination of what special efforts are sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the regulation is left to the local recipients, although an Appendix , to the regulations gives three illustrative examples of what efforts will be considered…”
Disabled In Action Of Pennsylvania v. Sykes, 833 F.2d 1113 (3rd Cir. 1987). “77 of the former regulations, 49 C.F.R. 27.77 (1981), did not excuse compliance with the accessibility requirements of 49 C.”
Rhode Island Handicapped Action Comm. v. Rhode Island Pub. Transit Auth., 718 F.2d 490 (1st Cir. 1983). “” 49 C.F.R. § 27.77 (1982). 5 Appendix A to the regulation provides three examples “illustrative of a level of effort that will be deemed to satisfy [the special efforts] requirement with respect to wheelchair users and semiambulatory persons.”
Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania v. Sykes, 833 F.2d 1113 (3rd Cir. 1987). “77 of the former regulations, 49 C.F.R. 27.77 (1981), did not excuse compliance with the accessibility requirements of 49 C.”
Rhea Dopico v. Neil E. Goldschmidt, Disabled in Action v. Neil E. Goldschmidt, 687 F.2d 644 (2d Cir. 1982). “These are now codified at 49 C.F.R. § 27.77 (1981). They return essentially to the 1976 model, requiring “special efforts” toward providing transportation usable by the handicapped, rather than achieving a predefined goal of “accessibility” by a certain date.”
Boswell v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., 217 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Utah 2002). “Boswell cites 49 C.F.R. 27.77, which provides: Any air carrier receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Transportation under the Essential Air Service program shall, as a condition of receiving such assistance, comply with applicable requirements of this…”
Disabled in Action of Baltimore v. Bridwell, 593 F. Supp. 1241 (D. Maryland 1984). “37488 (1981), 49 C.F.R. § 27.77 (1981). These regulations, currently in effect, require a return essentially to the 1976 model, requiring “special efforts” toward pro *1247 viding transportation usable by the handicapped, rather than “mainstreaming” or achieving a goal of…”
Rachel Rodriguez v. Via Metro. Transit Sys., 802 F.2d 126 (5th Cir. 1986). “The federal regulations in effect then and at the time of the instant action required transit authority recipients under UMTA to make “special efforts” in planning services and facilities that can be effectively used by the elderly and handicapped. See 49 U.”
Maine Human Rights Comm'n v. City of South Portland, 508 A.2d 948 (Me. 1986). “37,492 (1981) (codified at 49 C.F.R. § 27.77 (1985)). This advice, and South Portland's reliance upon it, was apparently based solely upon the federal regulations, without consideration of responsibilities possibly imposed by state law, including the MHRA.”
E. Paralyzed Vets. Ass'n of Pennsylvania Inc. v. Sykes, 676 F. Supp. 597 (E.D. Pa. 1987). “37488-94; 49 C.F.R. § 27.77 (1981). The 1981 regulations did not modify the requirements of Subpart C.”
Americans Disabled for Accessible Pub. Transp. v. Dole, 676 F. Supp. 635 (E.D. Pa. 1988). “37,-488; 49 C.F.R. § 27.77 (1981). In Rhode Island Handicapped Action Committee v.”
E. Paralyzed Vets. Ass'n of Pa. v. Sykes, 676 F. Supp. 597 (E.D. Pa. 1987). “37488-94; 49 C.F.R. § 27.77 (1981). The 1981 regulations did not modify the requirements of Subpart C.”
— 49 C.F.R. § 27.77(a)(1) — 2 cases
Disabled In Action Of Pennsylvania v. Sykes, 833 F.2d 1113 (3rd Cir. 1987). “77 of the former regulations, 49 C.F.R. 27.77 (1981), did not excuse compliance with the accessibility requirements of 49 C.”
Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania v. Sykes, 833 F.2d 1113 (3rd Cir. 1987). “77 of the former regulations, 49 C.F.R. 27.77 (1981), did not excuse compliance with the accessibility requirements of 49 C.”
— 49 C.F.R. § 27.77(a)(4) — 2 cases
Disabled In Action Of Pennsylvania v. Sykes, 833 F.2d 1113 (3rd Cir. 1987). “77 of the former regulations, 49 C.F.R. 27.77 (1981), did not excuse compliance with the accessibility requirements of 49 C.”
Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania v. Sykes, 833 F.2d 1113 (3rd Cir. 1987). “77 of the former regulations, 49 C.F.R. 27.77 (1981), did not excuse compliance with the accessibility requirements of 49 C.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.