Legal Opinion
Walter v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided June 2, 2006No. Civil Action 05-418PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
DuBOIS, District Judge.
Plaintiffs Barbara Walter (“Walter”) and Laura Greene (“Greene”) have mobility impairments. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 5-6. Prior to July 2004, both plaintiffs regularly used CCT Connect, a paratransit service provided by defendant Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (“SEPTA”). Id. ¶¶ 20, 24-25. However, in July 2004, SEPTA changed its eligibility criteria for paratransit services; as a result, plaintiffs are now only eligible for paratransit services during inclement weather. Id. ¶¶ 19-20, 25.
Plaintiffs filed suit individually and on behalf of other…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc., C/o Ct Corporation Systems Registered AgentCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- United States v. Mead Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
- National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet ServicesSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Handi-Van, Inc. v. Broward CountyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2013
- HAPLEA v. PLUMSTEADVILLE PUB, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2023
- Litman v. GEICO Casualty CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2023
- Litman v. GEICO Casualty CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2023