Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Citation
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Parent Document
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 2018-03-01
Other Sections in This Document (36)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
- Mary Valencia v. City of Springfield, 883 F.3d 959 (2018)
Full Text
1,700 charsnegative effect on the residents of the Sparc home, we agree
with the district court’s conclusion that “any potential ‘ad-
verse impact’ to the residents of the Sparc house due to the
close proximity of the Noble home is entirely speculative.”
According to the record, there has been virtually no interac-
tion between the residents of the two homes since the Noble
home was occupied. As a result, “[t]here is simply no basis to
conclude that the continued existence of the Noble home will
have any effect on the ability of the Sparc residents to inte-
grate into the community.”
Regardless, it is not clear that greater interface between the
residents of the Noble and Sparc homes would be problem-
atic. Sure, a report cited by the City from the Illinois Planning
Council on Developmental Disabilities recognizes “that it is
important for group homes to locate in a ‘normal’ residential
neighborhood” in order to encourage integration between
disabled and non-disabled residents. But there is no evidence
that this would not occur if both the Noble and Sparc homes
remain in place. Indeed, the report only states that “clusters
of four or five group homes on a single block could … under-
mine the ability of neighboring group homes to function
properly” (emphasis added). This is a far cry from the two
homes at issue here.
In sum, plaintiffs have shown a “better than negligible”
likelihood of success on the merits of their reasonable accom-
modation theory. See Whitaker, 858 F.3d at 1046. Therefore, the
district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction was proper.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the
district court.