First Circuit· 6/24/2003

Dudley v. Hannaford Bros.

Citations

333 F.3d 299
14 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 901
2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 12751
2003 WL 21448819

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that plaintiff had shown “a real and immediate threat of ongoing harm” where the “offending policy” which caused a prior injury “remains firmly in place”
concluding that plaintiff had shown “a real and immediate threat of ongoing harm” where the “offending policy” which caused a prior injury “remains firmly in place”
explaining that “[w]hen a [trial] court chooses between two plausible but conflicting interpretations of the evidence, its choice cannot be clearly erroneous”
explaining that the “compendium of remedies” afforded by section 12188(a)(1) includes injunctive relief, but not money damages
holding that retailer violated Title III of the ADA when it failed to reconsider its refusal- to-sell policy where individual with brain damage that caused him to appear intoxicated revealed his disability while attempting to purchase alcohol
stating that the remedies available under section 12188(a)(1) redress prospective rather than retrospective harm

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Selya, Coffin, Lipez

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

55 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

33 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.