Doe v. Pfrommer

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there is no ADA claim where “plaintiff is in essence challenging the adequacy of his [mental health] services, not illegal disability discrimination”
• explaining that the purpose of the ADA is “to assure that disabled individuals receive ‘evenhanded treatment’ in relation to the able-bodied”
• observing that a court may, sua sponte, raise collateral estoppel issues
• affirming the district court’s decision to raise collateral estoppel sua sponte in view of considerations of efficient judicial economy
• affirming sua sponte application of collateral estoppel in motion for summary judgment
• affirming sua sponte application of collateral estoppel in motion for summary judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).