Legal Opinion
Does v. District of Columbia
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided June 16, 2005No. CIV.A.01-02398 HHKPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
KENNEDY, District Judge.
Plaintiffs are mentally retarded adult women who receive habilitation services from the District of Columbia through the Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Administration (“MRDDA”), a component of the Department of Human Services. By their next friends, they bring this action for violations of their constitutional and civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“ § 1983”), alleging that MRDDA employs an unlawful practice of authorizing elective surgical procedures on behalf of retarded persons 1 in its care without adequately attempting to…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- City of Los Angeles v. LyonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Hewitt v. HelmsSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Mazurek v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Cruzan Ex Rel. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of HealthSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. SaikewiczMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1977
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Wolf v. Central Intelligence AgencyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2007
- Does I through III v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2005
- DOES I THROUGH III v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Doe Ex Rel. Tarlow v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2007
- Doe Ex Rel. Tarlow v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2013
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.