State Ex Rel. Goddard v. Harkins Amusement Enterprises, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a claim under Title III of the Americans with 5 Disabilities Act (“ADA”
• requiring proof for ADA claims that “the 20 defendant is a private entity that owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation”
• addressing whether movie captioning and audio descriptions qualified as an auxiliary aid for individual with “hearing loss so severe that he cannot hear or discriminate speech”
• turning to movie-captioning regulation to interpret the same provision of the ADA
• “This court has declined to give deference to Access Board guidelines that have not yet been adopted by the DOJ.”
• plaintiff must show that “(1) [ ]he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).