Ninth Circuit· 12/16/2011

M.R. v. Dreyfus

Citations

697 F.3d 706
2012 WL 2218824

How courts have described this case

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

“[T]o state a violation of the integration mandate . . . a plaintiff need only show that the challenged state action creates a serious risk of institutionalization.”
“DOJ’s interpretation is not only reasonable; it also better effectuates the purpose of the ADA to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
\An ADA plaintiff need not show that institutionalization is 'inevitable' or that she has 'no choice' but to submit to institutional care in order to state a violation of the integration mandate.\
see, e.g., Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 206, 219; Dkt. 4-1 at 11-12
loss of medically necessary services demonstrates likelihood of irreparable injury
\A preliminary injunction is proper if there is a likelihood of irreparable injury to plaintiff; there are serious questions going to the merits; the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of the plaintiff; and the injunction is in the public interest.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bea, Reinhardt, Fletcher, Rawlinson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

51 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

48 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named M.R. v. Dreyfus

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.