88 F. Supp. 2d 1189 - Spurlock v. Simmons’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 701 (Employment Opportunities for Individuals With Disabilities Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (§ 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Sandin v. Conner
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Regarding plaintiffs claim that defendants discriminated against him by not providing him unlimited access to a telephone [with TDD], ... the record establishes as a matter of law that plaintiff had meaningful access to a telephone. Defendants allowed plaintiff at least two 30-minute calls per week.... Second, even if defendants’ restrictions did not allow plaintiff to have meaningful access to the telephone, plaintiff fails to produce evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find that defendants could reasonably accommodate his request for unlimited phone use. Plaintiff fails to suggest any accommodation. His complaint and grievances suggest that he believes that [prison] staff should be available and able to immediately assist him whenever he finds it convenient to use the telephone, regardless of other job requirements. Such a request would be unreasonable and implausible. The only record evidence suggests that such a broad accommodation would place an undue burden on [prison] officials.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“While plaintiff alleges that he is similarly situated, it is uncontroverted that he cannot use the regular inmate telephone system. Instead, plaintiff must use a facility telephone [equipped with a TDD]. 4 As discussed above, inmates only have unlimited access to the inmate telephone system; they do not have unlimited access to facility telephones. Plaintiff is therefore not similarly situated to inmates who are able to use the inmate telephone system. Further, plaintiff fails to show that defendants treated him any differently than other inmates who required use of facility telephones.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Subject to the provisions of this sub-chapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.