Harris v. Del Taco, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• refusing to consider plaintiffs post-filing visit to the defendant restaurant in determining whether it was likely, at the time of filing, he would return
• interpreting Parr as holding that ADA plaintiffs must show intent to return, but that in the fast food context they may show it without producing concrete evidence of their plans to return
• \Mr. Harris need not love Del Taco food in order to sue any Del Taco restaurant. Mr. Harris could have demonstrated his intent to return in any number of ways.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).