State of New Hampshire v. Kathryn D. Pate

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that \credit cards do not provide an adequate substitute [for cash] because they have not replaced cash in many daily transactions\
• holding that Treasury Department denied meaningful access to the blind in not printing paper currency distinguishable by touch
• holding that blind people lacked “meaningful access” to currency despite the government’s argument that “availability of portable currency readers to identify denominations and credit cards as an alternative to cash” provided some access
• noting that the ADA and RA emphasize that for disabled individuals the “enjoyment of a public benefit is not contingent upon the cooperation of third persons”
• explaining that Title II and section 504 claims are “similar in substance” and that therefore “cases interpreting either are applicable and interchangeable”
• noting that the Rehabilitation Act is not a vehicle for “a challenge to the scope of a non-discriminatory program”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).