Frame v. City of Arlington
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
657 F.3d 215 (2011)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Five disabled individuals who use motorized wheelchairs for mobility (residents) (plaintiffs) filed suit against the City of Arlington (city) (defendant) for recently building and altering city sidewalks that were not accessible to wheelchair users in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The city argued that the residents did not have a private right of action to enforce Title II of the ADA and that any personal-injury claims were barred by a state statute of limitations. The district court dismissed the residents’ case on statute-of-limitations grounds. On appeal, a panel of the Fifth Circuit found that sidewalks were public services under the plain meaning of Title II, providing the residents with a private right of action. Upon further consideration, however, the majority reissued the opinion, finding that sidewalks themselves were not services and that residents had a right of action only for those sidewalks that denied access to public services, programs, or activities. Both parties moved for a rehearing en banc. The full Fifth Circuit found that the state statute of limitations did not bar the residents’ claims and then addressed the residents’ private right of action under Title II and § 504 regarding the sidewalks.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Benavides, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Jolly, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
