Riddell v. Boone County

How courts have described this case

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

• confirming that a defendant cannot be liable under the FHA unless he knew or should have known of the plaintiff’s disability
• finding that two weeks between an FHA-protected activity and an adverse action was “sufficient to state that a causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse action”
• finding FHA standing for “out-of-pocket expenses . . . resulting from Defendants’ refusal to provide a reasonable accommodation”
• filing suits for eviction, calling Animal Control services, and refusing to offer a renewed lease with terms like non-disabled tenants constituted “adverse action” by landlord under the FHA
• rejecting defendants’ argument that allowing a tenant to keep a part–pit bull mixed breed dog as an emotional support animal is, as a matter of law, not a reasonable accommodation under the FHA
• requesting reasonable accommodation is a protected activity for a retaliation claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).