Notes of Decisions
Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 16× “Furthermore, the regulations draw a distinction between services and facilities at the behest of Congress: DOJ is required to model the relevant regulations after the "regulations and analysis as in part 39 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations[,]" see 42 U.S.C. § 12134…”
Scot L. Zimmerman v. State of Oregon Dep't of Just., 170 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 1999).
· cites it 5× “See 42 U.S.C. § 12134 (a). Pursuant to that grant of authority, the Attorney Gen *1173 eral has determined that Title II applies to employment: No qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be subjected to discrimination in employment under any…”
Nicole Haberle v. Daniel Troxell, 885 F.3d 170 (3rd Cir. 2018).
· cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. §§ 12134 (a) (authority to promulgate regulation), 12206(c)(1) (authority to render technical assistance).”
United States v. Sec'y Florida Agency for Health Care Admin., 938 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 8× “” 42 U.S.C. § 12134 (a). Such regulations, with the exception of specifically-identified terms, shall be consistent with this chapter and with the coordination regulations under part 41 of title 28, Code of 6 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 7 of 66 Federal…”
Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999).
· cites it 3× “" § 204, as set forth in 42 U. S. C. § 12134 (b). One of the § 504 regulations requires recipients of federal funds to "administer programs and activities in the most integrated *592 setting appropriate to the needs of qualified handicapped persons.”
Shotz v. City of Plantation, FL, 344 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 2× “In addition, the DOJ did not exceed its rulemaking authority because the regulation is "reasonably related” to the legislative purposes of the ADA, as expressed in 42 U.”
Abrahams v. MTA Long Island Bus, 644 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2011).
· cites it 6× “42 U.S.C. § 12134 (a). Part B of Title II specifically governs the provision of public transportation services.”
Pierce v. Cnty. of Orange, 526 F.3d 1190 (9th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 12134 (a). The regulations are therefore given "legislative and hence controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or plainly contrary to the statute.”
A HELPING HAND, LLC v. Baltimore Cnty., MD, 515 F.3d 356 (4th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “Section 794a of the Rehabilitation Act, in turn, provides that the available “remedies, procedures, and rights” are those set forth in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.”
M.R. v. Dreyfus, 697 F.3d 706 (9th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 2× “See 42 U.S.C. § 12134 (a). One of the regu- lations is the so-called “integration mandate,” providing that “[a] public entity shall administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.”
Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “The regulation states, “a public entity, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, discriminate against individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130 (b)(1). This regulation was promulgated by the…”
— 42 U.S.C. § 12134(a) — 1 case
— 42 U.S.C. § 12134(b) — 3 cases
United States v. Sec'y Florida Agency for Health Care Admin., 938 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2019).
“” 42 U.S.C. § 12134 (a). Such regulations, with the exception of specifically-identified terms, shall be consistent with this chapter and with the coordination regulations under part 41 of title 28, Code of 6 Case: 17-13595 Date Filed: 09/17/2019 Page: 7 of 66 Federal…”
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.