State v. J.K.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “Garrett ... does not foreclose a trial and verdict based on ... unreasonable exclusion from judicial proceedings based on disability in a due process-type claim”
• holding that Congress did not properly abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity in equal protection claims brought under Title II of the ADA, but did properly do so in due process claims brought under that provision
• holding that Congress did not properly abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity in equal protection claims brought under Title II of the ADA, but did properly do so in due process claims brought under that provision
• explaining that “[a]s applied to the case before us, the ‘participation’ requirement of Title II serves to protect [the plaintiffs] due process right to a meaningful hearing ... ‘enforcing’ the due process right rather than ‘expanding’ it”
• “[T]he plaintiff’s action is barred by the Eleventh Amendment in so far as the action relies on congressional enforcement of the Equal Protection Clause, but it is not barred in so far as it relies on congressional enforcement of the Due Process Clause.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).