Legal Opinion
Kinney v. Yerusalim
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided November 23, 1993No. 93-1168PublishedCited by 32 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
ROTH, Circuit Judge:
This appeal requires us to determine whether 28 C.F.R. 35.151(e)(1) (1992), issued by the Attorney General pursuant to Section 204 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12134 (Supp.1991), requires the City of Philadelphia (the “City”) to install curb ramps1 at intersections when it resurfaces city streets. At issue is whether resurfacing constitutes an “alteration” within the scope of the regulation. The district court held that it does and ordered the City to install curb ramps on those portions of city streets for which…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1976
- Tigg Corporation v. Dow Corning CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
- Kinney v. YerusalimDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1993
- Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania v. SykesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1987
3Cited by32 opinions
- Frame v. City of ArlingtonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2011
- Parker v. Universidad De Puerto RicoCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2000
- Matthew Staron, Jennifer Champagne, Brandon Naples, and Linda Ravenell v. McDonald Corporation and Burger King CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- The Regents of the Mercersburg College v. Republic Franklin Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2006
- Disabled in Action v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation AuthorityCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2011
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.