U.S. Code
»
Title 42
» Chapter CHAPTER 127— COORDINATED SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— ESTABLISHMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND AWARDING OF GRANTS FOR PROGRAMS › Part Part A— Administration on Children, Youth, and Families
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case:
Reickenbacker v. Foster, 274 F.3d 974 (5th Cir. 2001).
Reickenbacker v. Foster, 274 F.3d 974 (5th Cir. 2001).
“VII Since Congress has not validly acted through its Fourteenth Amendment § 5 power to abrogate state sovereign immunity, LDPSC was entitled to dismissal of both the Title II and Rehabilitation Act claims.”
Pashby v. Cansler, 279 F.R.D. 347 (E.D.N.C. 2011).
“§ 1396a(a)(10)(B); Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12312 ; section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.”
Ickes, No. 3:25-cv-05859 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2025).
· cites it 2× “” 42 U.S.C. § 12312 . 9 Similarly, under the Rehabilitation Act, “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability .”
Ickes, No. 3:25-cv-05859 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2025).
· cites it 2× “” 42 U.S.C. § 12312 . Similarly, under the Rehabilitation Act, “[n]o otherwise qualified 7 individual with a disability .”
Yates v. East Side Union High Sch. Dist., No. 3:18-cv-02966 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2021).
“21 The same goes for the claims for disability discrimination against the District under the 22 ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12312 , Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.”
Stevens v. Ludeman, No. 0:16-cv-02237 (D. Minn. Mar. 25, 2019).
“) To state a claim for disability discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 12312 , as Plaintiff is attempting to do, a plaintiff must “show (1) they are qualified individuals with a disability; (2) they were denied the benefits of a public entity's service or program, or otherwise…”
B.S. v. Carter Cnty. Bd. of Educ., No. 2:21-cv-00171 (E.D. Tenn. Dec. 12, 2023).
“” 42 U.S.C. § 12312 . Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act generally applies that same prohibition to any federally funded “program or activity” but the causation standard is higher—any discrimination must occur “solely by reason of” the plaintiff’s disability.”
Prado v. City of Berkeley, No. 3:23-cv-04537, 2024 WL 3697037 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2024).
“” 42 U.S.C. § 12312 . The 27 public entity may not “directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize criteria or 1 impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the public entity’s program with respect to 2 individuals with disabilities.”
(PS) Hipp v. The City of Vallejo, No. 2:25-cv-01806 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2025).
“6 Under Title II of the ADA, “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of 7 such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the 8 services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by 9 any…”
Kuperman v. Warden, NHSP, 2009 DNH 175 (D.N.H. 2009).
“3 Kuperman also brought a number of other claims against the defendants: an Eighth Amendment claim for failure to protect him from a series of sexual assaults; another Eighth Amendment claim for failure to provide adequate medical care; a related common- law negligence claim;…”
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.