Search results
18 wrz 2019 · The Court's Moore v. Texas II ruling highlights the tension that has at times existed between medical and legal definitions. 21 When the Court decided Atkins, it found a Constitutional prohibition against executing intellectually disabled defendants without providing a clear legal definition of intellectual disability or procedures for ...
18 wrz 2019 · Court’s most recent ruling on intellectual disability in capital cases, Moore v. Texas II (2019), is explored in depth. The article concludes with recommendations for best practices among forensic evaluators who assess capital
The prima facie elements of a claim for disability discrimination under TCHRA are: (1) the plaintiff has a disability; (2) the plaintiff is “qualified” for the job; and (3) the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment decision because of his disability.
1 cze 2020 · In Moore v. Texas (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Texas death penalty definitions of intellectual disability were inadequate because they strayed too far from clinical definitions. This study examines how each state defines intellectual disability with regard to death penalty eligibility.
Moore v. Texas: States do not have unlimited discretion in determining whether an inmate subject to the death penalty is intellectually disabled, and their decision must be guided by the diagnostic framework of the medical community.
A disabled person is one who has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of the person's major life activities, has a record of such impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment. See Patterson v. Department of the Air Force, MSPB Docket No. PH-0752-95-0427-I-3, slip op. at 17 (May 21, 1997); Miller v.
3 sty 2024 · A new Fifth Circuit decision on disability discrimination in Texas refines the federal definition of temporary disabilities that are now included in the ADAA.
