Botosan v. Fitzhugh

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an allegation that a plaintiff “is being subjected to a discrimination” meant that the plaintiff had been deterred from visiting a public accommodation on a daily basis, and sup- ported a claim for daily damages under sections 52(a) and 54.3(a)
• basing its holding that § 2000a-3(c) does not apply to Title III of the ADA on the doctrine expressio unius est exclusio alter ius
• “[A]ttorney’s fees are an item of special damages that must be specifically sought in the complaint.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).