Kohler v. Presidio International, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that DOJ 20 Guidance was entitled to substantial deference in an ADA case
• explaining that the DOJ guidance is “entitled to substantial deference” and “will be 19 disregarded only if plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation.”
• refusing to overrule SoBreck in reliance on a California Supreme Court case, because preemption is a question of federal law
• DOJ’s guidance interpreting requirements of the ADA is “entitled to substantial 16 deference”
• DOJ’s guidance interpreting 19 requirements of the ADA is “entitled to substantial deference”
• DOJ’s guidance interpreting requirements of the ADA is “entitled to substantial 2 deference”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).