Proctor v. Proctor's Admr.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that plaintiff's allegations need only support an inference \that he might reasonably be expected to visit [the facility] again\
• stating that the plaintiff need only show that non- accessible ATMs were “near enough and convenient enough that he might reasonably be expected to visit them”
• denying dismissal for mootness because court could not conclude as a matter of law that defendant had satisfied its heavy burden of establishing voluntary cessation
• denying motion to dismiss as moot because defendant failed to conclusively establish that it took appropriate measures to correct all of the areas of non-compliance alleged in the complaint
• where evidence was unclear whether private party rectified ADA violations after complaint was filed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).