Case Citator › Innovative Health Systems, Inc. v. City of White Plains

Innovative Health Systems, Inc. v. City of White Plains

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

Overruled in part
Court
Second Circuit
Citation
117 F.3d 37
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
31 of 31
Citing cases (total)
31
Treatment dates
2001
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. Innovative Health Systems, Inc. v. City of White Plains was overruled in part on preliminary injunction review. All 31 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Second Circuit's later decision in Zervos v. Verizon New York, Inc. rejected the less deferential review standard Innovative used when the district court heard no live testimony. That treatment is listed below. Later courts continued to rely on Innovative's holdings that disability discrimination laws cover municipal zoning and permit an injured treatment provider to sue.

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.

31 later cases cite Innovative Health Systems, Inc. v. City of White Plains; 31 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 Innovative Health Systems, Inc. v. City of White Plains?

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

Overruled in part

  • The Second Circuit displaced Innovative's rule allowing less deferential review of a preliminary injunction decision based solely on a written record.

    Zervos v. Verizon New York, Inc. · Second Circuit · filed

    In sum, because the live testimony exception is no longer available, we may displace the District Court's decision to deny Zervos's motion for a preliminary injunction only if we conclude that that decision amounted to an abuse of discretion. ... In support of this proposition, Brewer relied on Innovative Health Systems, Inc. v. City of White Plains, 117 F.3d 37, 43 (2d Cir. 1997), which in turn rested on Doe v. New York University, 666 F.2d 761, 765 (2d Cir. 1981). Doe was based on Jack Kahn Music Co. v. Baldwin Piano & Organ Co., 604 F.2d 755, 758 (2d Cir. 1979), and we have made it clear that Jack Kahn was superseded by the 1985 amendments.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Innovative Health Systems, Inc. v. City of White Plains 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