Legal Opinion
Does I through III v. District of Columbia
District Court, District of Columbia
Decided November 21, 2005No. CIV.A. 01-02398(HHK)PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
KENNEDY, District Judge.
Plaintiffs are three mentally retarded adult women who receive habilitation services1 from the District of Columbia through the Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Administration (“MRDDA”), a component of the Department of Human Services. Jane Doe I is an adult woman in her forties who has received such services from the District of Columbia since 1960. In 1984, allegedly without either consulting with Jane Doe I’s legal representative or obtaining substituted judgment from a court, District officials gave their consent to have…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Wilson v. GarciaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Taylor v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer AuthorityDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2007
- Disability Rights Council v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2006
- Lightfoot v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- Daskalea v. the Washington Humane SocietyDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
- DOES I THROUGH III v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2011
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.