Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Tucker v. Tennessee

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided August 29, 2008No. 06-6208Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKeith, Circuit Judge

While I concur with the majority concerning most of the claims brought by the plaintiffs in this case, I cannot agree that summary judgment is appropriate for determining whether Hardin County violated the ADA by denying Plaintiffs Blake and Odis Tucker the equal opportunity to a phone call after their arrests.

The Tuckers are deaf and mute, and the question regarding their post-arrest treatment is straightforward: Whether Hardin County may, under the ADA, use jail officials to carry out the phone call guaranteed to the Tuckers by Tennessee law, rather than providing an acceptable auxiliary…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. YeskeySupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  3. Robertson v. Las Animas County Sheriff's DepartmentCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2007
  4. Jotham Clement Johnson v. City of SalineCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1998
  5. Tucker v. Hardin CountyDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API