Ingram v. Lane

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that defendant failed to prevent plaintiff’s statutory rights from being violated when plaintiff was housed in a non-ADA-compliant cell despite the availability of ADA-compliant cells
• concluding that because prison cells did not comply with the ADA’s structural requirements and “the Sheriff’s Department has failed to show that [plaintiff] was provided equivalent access, there can be no dispute that the defendants failed to comply with Article II of the ADA”
• granting summary judgment to plaintiff because plaintiff lacked access, “[a]lthough the issue is not free from doubt”
• explaining it was “apparent” an inmate who was confined to a wheelchair was “in need of ADA compliant facilities.”
• noting the “non-ADA compliant” shower chair “had a seat height of twenty inches, rather than a height of seventeen to nineteen inches required by the ADA.”
• refusing to shift blame where claim arose from housing assignment, not medical malpractice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).