Smith-Berch, Inc. v. Baltimore County, Md.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the defendants admit they treat proposed methadone climes differently from other drug treatment facilities and concluding that the County’s special methadone policy imposes a disproportionate burden on opiate addicts who require methadone therapy to aid in recovery
• finding the Baltimore City Council was not a “person” within the meaning of § 1983
• noting an absence of dispute as to whether Title II applies to zoning decisions
• declining to dismiss ADA claims against the Baltimore County Council and noting that “it is axiomatic that [immunity defenses] are individual in nature and do not apply to either local governments or their agencies”
• “[T]he court agrees with Defendants that a public hearing requirement does not of itself establish an actionable violation of the ADA.”
• indicating an absence of dispute on this issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).