Iverson v. City of Boston

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “plaintiffs’ failure to mention—let alone adequately to develop—the ... theory in their opposition to the [defendant's dispositive motion defeats their belated attempt to advance the theory on appeal”
• holding that the ADA regulations before the court “impose obligations different than, and beyond, those imposed by Title II of the ADA” and therefore “are not enforceable through . . . the private right of action available under that statute”
• noting that a theory of recovery “not squarely and timely raised in the trial court cannot be pursued for the first time on appeal[,]” particularly where the plaintiff failed to raise the theory in opposition to a dispositive motion
• \[T]heories not squarely and timely raised in the trial court cannot be pursued for the first time on appeal.\
• litigants must “spell out their legal theories face-up and squarely in the trial court” to avoid waiver
• motion for reconsideration does not “allow a party [to] advance arguments that could and should have been presented to the district court prior to judgment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).