Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Galloway v. Superior Court

816 F. Supp. 12 (1993)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 32,200+ case briefs...

Galloway v. Superior Court

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

816 F. Supp. 12 (1993)

Facts

Donald Galloway (plaintiff) reported for jury duty at the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (the Superior Court) (defendant). Superior Court personnel told Galloway that he was barred from serving as a juror because he was blind, and an official court policy excluded all blind people from jury service. Galloway sued the Superior Court in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the Superior Court’s policy of systemically excluding blind people as jurors violated both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act (RA). Galloway sought declaratory and injunctive relief invalidating the Superior Court’s policy. Both parties moved for summary judgment. Galloway acknowledged that it might be difficult for blind people to serve as jurors in some cases (e.g., those involving substantial documentary evidence) but opined that judges and parties involved in those cases should make those determinations on a case-by-case basis. Galloway presented evidence that: (1) a blind person had previously served as a judge in the Superior Court; (2) the Superior Court had no policy excluding deaf people from its jury pools and provided sign-language interpreters as reasonable accommodations; (3) in many cases, blind people could be reasonably accommodated by providing audio describers (people trained to describe physical movements, dress, and physical settings); (4) and blind jurors, like sighted jurors, could assess witnesses’ credibility by evaluating the content of testimony and witnesses’ tones and speech patterns. The Superior Court asserted that blind people were not qualified to perform the essential functions of jurors. The district court considered the parties’ summary-judgment motions.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Green, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 585,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 585,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 32,200 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 585,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 32,200 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership