Hammonds v. Eads

How courts have described this case

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

• holding - 14 - that a “building with a ‘no pets’ policy must accommodate a blind person and his seeing eye dog[,]” otherwise “the blind person will not have an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling”
• denying summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether a dog “pose[d] a - 20 - direct threat to members of the condominium association, and whether that threat can be reduced by other reasonable accommodations”
• “[T]his Court holds that an emotional support animal as defined by the FHA is a reasonable accommodation.”
• “[T]he presumption in favor of a reasonable accommodation is such that the Fair Housing Act requires the existence of a significant risk—not a remote or speculative risk.”
• “[W]hether [an ESA] poses a direct threat that cannot be mitigated by another reasonable accommodation[] is not a question of law, it is distinctly a question of fact.”
• plaintiff’s psychiatrist, who diagnosed plaintiff with severe depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, ‘strongly recommended’ that housing provider allow patient to keep emotional support animal because of the dog’s ‘therapeutic use and function’

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).