For Your Data Bay Expanse Addiction Question As Well As Treatment, Inc. V. Urban Gist Of Antioch Instance Brief

Bay Area Addiction Research as well as Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch illustration brief summary
179 F.3d 725 (1999)

CASE SYNOPSIS

Plaintiffs sought review of a conclusion of the the States District Court for the Northern District of California denying plaintiffs' displace for a preliminary injunction to halt the implementation of an urgency ordinance passed yesteryear defendants to block the relocation of plaintiffs' methadone clinic.

CASE FACTS
Plaintiffs, operators of a methadone clinic, challenged the district court's refusal to grant a preliminary injunctive relief blocking an urgency ordinance passed yesteryear defendants barring the relocation of plaintiffs' methadone hospital inwards plaintiffs' city, fifty-fifty though such a piece of job was permitted nether the city's zoning code.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, the courtroom held that Title II of the Americans amongst Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 12132 and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 794(a) (1999), applied to discriminatory zoning practices because zoning was a normal business office of a regime entity.
The reasonable modifications examination laid upwards forth in 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7) (1998) did non apply because defendants' ordinance discriminated on its confront rather than inwards its application.
Defendants' facially discriminatory constabulary per se violated the ADA.
The district courtroom erred yesteryear failing to apply the "significant risk" examination when deciding whether plaintiffs would survive irreparable impairment yesteryear denial of injunctive relief.
The courtroom reversed the social club denying a preliminary injunction as well as remanded for reconsideration of plaintiffs' motion.

CONCLUSION
The courtroom reversed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction to block implementation of defendants' urgency ordinance barring plaintiffs from relocating their methadone hospital inside defendants' metropolis limits, because the ordinance facially violated the Americans amongst Disabilities as well as Rehabilitation Acts as well as application of the "significant risks" examination was required when weighing whether plaintiffs would survive irreparable harm.

Suggested constabulary schoolhouse report materials