Molski v. Rapazzini Winery

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that daily damages are not available under section 52(a)
• “‘each offense’” is each time the plaintiff visits the non-compliant place of public accommodation or each specific instance in which the plaintiff is deterred from attempting to visit.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp.
  Ninth Circuit· 2007-08-31· cited 577×
• Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp.
  Ninth Circuit· 2008-04-22· cited 9×
• Grutman v. Regents of the University of California
  N.D. California· 2011-08-02· cited 4×
• Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty
  Ninth Circuit· 2007-08-31
• Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty
  Ninth Circuit· 2008-04-07

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Andrews v. King
  Ninth Circuit· 2005-02-10· cited 1,281×
• De Long v. Hennessey
  Ninth Circuit· 1990-08-30· cited 591×
• David M. Fink v. James H. Gomez, Director, Diana Carloni Nourse
  Ninth Circuit· 2001-02-08· cited 465×
• Weissman v. Quail Lodge Inc.
  Ninth Circuit· 1999-06-10· cited 148×
• Molski v. Mandarin Touch Restaurant
  C.D. California· 2004-12-09· cited 44×
• Arnold v. United Artists Theatre Circuit, Inc.
  N.D. California· 1994-04-15· cited 25×
• Unnamed case
  Ninth Circuit· 1989-09-06· cited 14×