John DOE v. NATIONAL BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a student had standing to challenge a rule requiring that he be identified as disabled because such label could sour the perception of him by “people who can affect his future and his livelihood”
• explaining that a “commonplace” rule of statutory interpretation is that “the specific governs the general,” particularly “when Congress has targeted specific problems with specific solutions in the context of a general statute” (quotation marks omitted)
• analyzing whether a different section of Title III of the ADA governs examinations and concluding that because the “specific governs the general,” this statute controls
• finding an injury-in-fact where a plaintiff established that he had actually been identified as a disabled person against his will on already-promulgated score reports

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).