Cruz Ex Rel. Cruz v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the plaintiff student is not a “‘star’ player in any of his interscholastic sports” in concluding that allowing him to play would not “fundamentally alter” competition
• applying the rationale of Martin to a Title II challenge to obtain a waiver from a high school athletic association’s maximum-age eligibility requirement
• relying on the school’s no-cut policy to discount the defendant’s concern over plaintiff taking another student’s place
• “[I]n Martin, the. Supreme Court made clear that a basic requirement of the ADA is the evaluation of a disabled person on an individual basis.”
• similarly finding that preventing the plaintiff student from participating in competitive sports would cause irreparable harm considering his IEP
• “[I]n Martin, the Supreme Court made clear that a basic requirement of 13 the ADA is the evaluation of a disabled person on an individual basis.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).