Case Citator › Tucker v. Tennessee

Tucker v. Tennessee

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Sixth Circuit
Citation
539 F.3d 526
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
74 of 74
Citing cases (total)
216
Treatment dates
2015–2022
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Tucker v. Tennessee is abrogated in part. All 74 flagged citations were read.
More on how this was screened

The two confirmed treatments listed below remove Tucker's sole-causation requirement for intentional discrimination under Title II of the ADA and decline to extend its adult-interpreter reasoning to minor children. Tucker's other holdings were not displaced by these opinions. Lange v. City of Oconto left the underlying dispute about the minor-interpreter regulation unresolved because any instructional error was not prejudicial.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

216 later cases cite Tucker v. Tennessee; 74 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Tucker v. Tennessee?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Sixth Circuit applied its en banc rejection of sole causation to Tucker's Title II intentional-discrimination test.

    Anderson ex rel. C.A. v. City of Blue Ash · Sixth Circuit · filed

    Our test for intentional discrimination under Title II of the ADA previously required that the discrimination be “solely” because of the plaintiff’s disability, Tucker, 539 F.3d at 535 (emphasis original); see also Dillery v. City of Sandusky, 398 F.3d 562, 567 (6th Cir. 2005), Jones v. City of Monroe, Mich., 341 F.3d 474, 477 (6th Cir. 2003), but our decision in Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp., 681 F.3d 312, 317 (6th Cir. 2012) (en banc), rejected this sole-causation requirement. While Lewis dealt with intentional discrimination claims under Title I of the ADA, we specifically discussed the causation language in Title II, noting that it too “fails to use ‘solely.’” Id. at 315. Therefore our holding in Lewis that “[t]he sole-cause standard . . . does not apply to claims under the ADA,” id. at 317, applies with equal force where, as here, the intentional discrimination claim is brought under Title II.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Limited

  • The Seventh Circuit found Tucker's adult-interpreter reasoning unpersuasive for a mother's use of her minor children as interpreters.

    Lange v. City of Oconto · Seventh Circuit · filed

    However, Tucker is not persuasive, as that case involved an adult plaintiff and whether she consented to interpret for her adult son; it did not concern minor children and whether their adult mother could consent to the minors’ use as interpreters. Id. at 530, 533–34.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Tucker v. Tennessee and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace