49 C.F.R. § 37.1
Purpose
The purpose of this part is to implement the transportation and related provisions of titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2024 · leading case: Seldon v. Suburban Mobility Auth. for Reg'l Transp., 824 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
Seldon v. Suburban Mobility Auth. for Reg'l Transp., 824 N.W.2d 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012). “49 CFR 37.1; 49 CFR 37.5. Because SMART buses are not equipped with such devices for all passengers, SMART could not have legally required plaintiff to use a shoulder restraint.”
Hulett v. City of Syracuse, 253 F. Supp. 3d 462 (N.D.N.Y. 2017). “The “direct threat” doctrine operates as an affirmative defense to a disability discrimination claim under the ADA, 49 C.F.R. §§ 37.1 , 37.5(h), and is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies,…”
Brooklyn Ctr. for Indep. of the Disabled v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 11 F.4th 55 (2d Cir. 2021). “Department of Transportation (“DOT”) regulations, promulgated to implement Title II, see 49 C.F.R. § 37.1 , et seq., require that the provider of a transportation service must “maintain in operative condition those features of facilities .”
Jorisch v. Rhythm Festival, Inc., 544 S.E.2d 459 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). “49 CFR § 37.1 . 49 CFR § 38.1 . 42 USCA § 12184.”
Jesse L Davis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “49 CFR § 37.1 ; 49 CFR § 37.5 . Because SMART buses are not equipped with such devices for all passengers, SMART could not have legally required plaintiff to use a shoulder restraint.”
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.