Monagas v. Vidal

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a single visit to a non- complaint building with no expressed intent to return amounted to “conjectural, hypothetical, or contingent” rather than “real and immediate” future discrimination”
• concluding plaintiff lacked standing where complaint contained only past acts of discrimination and no facts suggesting likelihood of future discrimination
• suggesting that an intent to visit a public accommodation in the future may satisfy the injunctive relief standard
• noting that “[t]o state a claim under Title II of the ADA, a. plaintiff must allege ... that he is a ‘qualified individual with a disability.’ ”
• explaining that in evaluating standing, the court must look at “the facts alleged in the complaint” and “may not ‘speculate concerning the existence of standing or ‘piece together support for the plaintiff’”
• explaining that these requirements are the “irreducible minimum” of Article III standing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).