Olmstead v. L.C. (1999)
E1548464
UNEXPLORED
Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that held unjustified segregation of people with disabilities in institutions violates the Americans with Disabilities Act’s integration mandate.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T22674856 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) Context triple: [Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, interpretedBy, Olmstead v. L.C. (1999)]
-
A.
Olmstead v. United States
Olmstead v. United States was a 1928 U.S. Supreme Court case that held warrantless wiretapping did not violate the Fourth Amendment, a stance later curtailed by modern privacy jurisprudence.
-
B.
Alden v. Maine
Alden v. Maine is a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded state sovereign immunity by holding that states are generally immune from private suits for damages in their own courts under federal law.
-
C.
Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman
Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that limited federal court authority over state institutions by holding that the Eleventh Amendment bars federal courts from ordering state officials to comply with state law.
-
D.
Regan v. Wald
Regan v. Wald is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal restrictions on travel to Cuba, affirming broad executive authority over foreign affairs and economic sanctions.
-
E.
Employment Division v. Smith
Employment Division v. Smith is a landmark 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed protections for religious practices under the Free Exercise Clause by upholding the enforcement of neutral, generally applicable laws even when they incidentally burden religion.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) Target entity description: Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that held unjustified segregation of people with disabilities in institutions violates the Americans with Disabilities Act’s integration mandate.
-
A.
Olmstead v. United States
Olmstead v. United States was a 1928 U.S. Supreme Court case that held warrantless wiretapping did not violate the Fourth Amendment, a stance later curtailed by modern privacy jurisprudence.
-
B.
Alden v. Maine
Alden v. Maine is a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that expanded state sovereign immunity by holding that states are generally immune from private suits for damages in their own courts under federal law.
-
C.
Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman
Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that limited federal court authority over state institutions by holding that the Eleventh Amendment bars federal courts from ordering state officials to comply with state law.
-
D.
Regan v. Wald
Regan v. Wald is a 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal restrictions on travel to Cuba, affirming broad executive authority over foreign affairs and economic sanctions.
-
E.
Employment Division v. Smith
Employment Division v. Smith is a landmark 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision that significantly narrowed protections for religious practices under the Free Exercise Clause by upholding the enforcement of neutral, generally applicable laws even when they incidentally burden religion.
- F. None of above. chosen
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.