Easley v. Snider

How courts have described this case

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

• The ADA does not require that the Commonwealth extend its attendant care services to physically disabled individuals who were not mentally alert as doing so would result in an unreasonable modification of the program
• “[I]f 16 there is no factual basis in the record demonstrating that accommodating the individual 17 would require a fundamental modification or an undue burden, then the handicapped 18 person is otherwise qualified . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).