Ninth Circuit· 8/31/2017

David Updike v. Multnomah County

Citations

870 F.3d 939
2017 WL 3758346
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16761

How courts have described this case

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

stating that \[a] denial of a request [for an accommodation] without investigation is sufficient to survive summary judgment on the question of deliberate indifference\
holding that there was no deliberate indifference because of bureaucratic slippage
holding that the plaintiff was not “necessarily . . . entitled to have an ASL interpreter as a matter of course to achieve effective communication,” because “whether the County provided appropriate auxiliary aids where necessary is a fact-intensive exercise”
observing that Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires only that “allegations in the complaint give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests” (internal quotation marks omitted)
reversing summary judgment on an effective communication claim even though the plaintiff was able to communicate to a limited extent by lip-reading and writing
noting that “[a]n ASL interpreter will often be necessary to ensure communication with a deaf person who has become enmeshed in the criminal justice system,” but “we do not hold that [plaintiff] necessarily was entitled to have an ASL interpreter as a matter of course”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Tashima, Gould, Rawlinson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

17 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.