Legal Opinion
Disability Advocates, Inc. v. Paterson
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided February 19, 2009No. 03-CV-3209 (NGG)(MDG)PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
NICHOLAS G. GARAUFIS, District Judge.
The “integration mandate” of Title II of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), as expressed in federal regulations and Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 119 S.Ct. 2176, 144 L.Ed.2d 540 (1999), requires that when a state provides services to individuals with disabilities, it must do so “in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.” The Supreme Court explicitly held in Olmstead that “[u]njustified isolation ... is properly regarded as discrimination based on disability,”…
2Cases cited50 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Warth v. SeldinSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Lewis v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1996
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Disability Advocates, Inc. v. New York Coalition for Quality Assisted Living, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2012
- Thorpe v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2012
- Connecticut Office of Protection & Advocacy for Persons With Disabilities v. ConnecticutDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2010
- Disability Advocates, Inc. v. PatersonDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2009
- Mental Disability Law Clinic v. HoganDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2010
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.