Dudley v. Hannaford Bros.

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).