Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the “client or customer” limitation of § 12182(b)(1)(A)(iv) does not apply to § 12182(a) or to § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv)
• explaining that we may reverse the denial of a motion for a new trial when the district court has “made a mistake of law”
• explaining that we may reverse the denial of a motion for a new trial when the district court has “made a mistake of law”
• explaining that a district court reviews a motion seeking new trial based on an argument of excessive damages under the standards traditionally applicable to Rule 59
• concluding the verdict was against the clear weight of evidence when 18 “the record contain[ed] no evidence in support of the verdict,” which contracted “undisputed 19 testimony from” the plaintiff and defendant
• stating that, “[b]ecause the Unruh Act is 23 coextensive with the ADA and [unlike the ADA] allows for monetary damages, litigants in federal 24 court in California often pair state Unruh Act claims with federal ADA claims”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).