U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 144— DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ASSISTANCE AND BILL OF RIGHTS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— PROGRAMS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES › Part Part A— General Provisions

42 U.S.C. § 2

FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
“(a)Findings.—Congress finds the following:“(1) Special Olympics celebrates the possibilities of a world where everybody matters, everybody counts, every person has value, and every person has worth.“(2) The Government and the people of the United States recognize the dignity and value the giftedness of children and adults with an intellectual disability.“(3) The Government and the people of the United States are determined to end the isolation and stigmatization of people with an intellectual disability.“(4) For more than 36 years, Special Olympics has encouraged skill, sharing, courage, and joy through year-round sports training and athletic competition for children and adults with intellectual disabilities.“(5) Special Olympics provides year-round sports training and competitive opportunities to 1,500,000 athletes with intellectual disabilities in 26 sports and plans to expand the joy of participation through sport to hundreds of thousands of people with intellectual disabilities within the United States and worldwide over the next 5 years.“(6) Special Olympics has demonstrated its ability to provide a major positive effect on the quality of life of people with intellectual disabilities, improving their health and physical well-being, building their confidence and self-esteem, and giving them a voice to become active and productive members of their communities.“(7) In society as a whole, Special Olympics has become a vehicle and platform for breaking down artificial barriers, improving public health, changing negative attitudes in education, and helping athletes overcome the prejudice that people with intellectual disabilities face in too many places.“(8) The Government of the United States enthusiastically supports Special Olympics, recognizes its importance in improving the lives of people with intellectual disabilities, and recognizes Special Olympics as a valued and important component of the global community.“(b)Purpose.—The purposes of this Act are to—“(1) provide support to Special Olympics to increase athlete participation in and public awareness about the Special Olympics movement;“(2) dispel negative stereotypes about people with intellectual disabilities;“(3) build athletic and family involvement through sport; and“(4) promote the extraordinary gifts of people with intellectual disabilities.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: David Griffith, Plaintiff—appellant v. City of Des Moines, Defendants—appellees, 387 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
David Griffith, Plaintiff—appellant v. City of Des Moines, Defendants—appellees, 387 F.3d 733 (8th Cir. 2004). “See 42 U.S.C. § 2 .000e-2(m); H.R. Rep. 102-40(1) at 48; H.”
United States v. Vega, 813 F.3d 386 (1st Cir. 2016). “For payments made to Preferred’s equipment coordinators and Garrastegui, Vega was charged with twenty-eight counts of aiding and abetting the solicitation and receipt of kickbacks in relation to the Medicare program, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2 and 1320a-7b(b)(l)(B). Vega…”
Korte v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 912 F. Supp. 2d 735 (S.D. Ill. 2012). “10 Plaintiffs have brought suit contending that the ACA mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2 '000bb-l (2006), the Free Exercise, Establishment, and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth…”
Tekula v. Bayport-Blue Point Sch. Dist., 295 F. Supp. 2d 224 (E.D.N.Y 2003). “The plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2 (e) et seq. and the New York State Human Rights Law, New York Executive Law (“NYSHRL”), § 290 et seq.”
Panelli v. First Am. Title Ins., 704 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (D. Nev. 2010). “Plaintiff Molnar Molnar fails to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because she cannot show that she engaged in an activity protected under Title VIL, The opposition clause of 42 U.S.C. § 2 (}00e-3(a) states in relevant part, “It shall be an unlawful employment practice…”
Wilson v. Sharon Steel Corp., 399 F. Supp. 403 (W.D. Pa. 1975). “This suit was brought by plaintiff individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages “to redress the deprivation of rights against racial discrimination in employment secured to plaintiff by Title VII of…”
Arey v. Providence Hosp., 55 F.R.D. 62 (D.D.C. 1972). “42 U.S.C. § 2 000e-5(e) (1964). Although this section sets a 30-day time limit, the EEOC has extended it to an automatic 60 days because of its heavy caseload.”
Ctr. for Legal Advocacy v. Earnest, 188 F. Supp. 2d 1251 (D. Colo. 2002). “§ 290dd-2 (PHSA) and its accompanying regulations, 42 U.S.C. §2 et seq, in conjunction with the access statutes of 42 U.”
Anderson v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 357 F. Supp. 248 (N.D. Cal. 1972). “§ 1983 and by 42 U.S.C. § 2 OOOd. 21. There exists a present controversy between plaintiffs and defendants with respect to the matters hereinbefore set forth.”
Kansas City S. Ry. Co. v. Johnston, 429 P.2d 720 (Okla. 1967). “§ 2 ), which makes it unlawful for a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce to use cars ‘not equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact, and which can be uncoupled without the necessity of men going between the end of the car’, requires couplers which, after…”
Marlowe v. Fisher Body, 489 F.2d 1057 (6th Cir. 1973). “This case was begun in the district court as an action for damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2 (K)0e et seq. The original complaint was filed on August 5, 1970 and the only defendant was Fisher Body, a division of General Motors Corporation…”
Byrd v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc., 510 So. 2d 156 (Ala. 1987). “Cobb adopted the holding in Affolder that there is no violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2 if the cars fail to couple when the couplers on both cars are closed.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
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.