Legal Opinion
Ferguson v. City of Phoenix
District Court, D. Arizona
Decided July 17, 1996No. Civ. 95-0260 PHX RCBPublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
AMENDED ORDER
BROOMFIELD, Chief Judge.
Plaintiffs, William Ferguson, Bonnie Tucker and Jay Frankel, bring this ease pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Each plaintiff is deaf, and thereby qualifies for ADA protection. Plaintiffs allege that defendant, the City of Phoenix, operates its 911 emergency service in such a way as to discriminate against the hearing impaired, in violation of the ADA. Now before the court is defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The United States…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- City of Canton v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Ferguson v. City of PhoenixCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
- Proctor v. Prince George's Hospital CenterDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1998
- Meara v. BennettDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1998
- Davis v. FlexmanDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1999
- Smith v. University of Washington Law SchoolDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1998
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.