United Industrial Workers ex rel. Rivera v. Government of the Virgin Islands

How courts have described this case

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

• underscoring that “Laufer is a person with disabilities — not just any one of the hundreds of millions of Americans with a laptop — and personally suffered the denial of information the law entitles her, as a person with disabilities, to have”
• concluding that testers have standing
• first citing Fed. Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 20-21 (1998); and then citing Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Just., 491 U.S. 440, 449-50 (1989)
• “That a plaintiff’s ultimate recovery may be uncertain or even unlikely is of no moment to the mootness inquiry. Instead, we assume the claim’s legal validity to determine whether it is nonetheless moot.”
• “That a plaintiff’s ultimate recovery may be uncertain or even unlikely is of no moment to the mootness inquiry. Instead, we assume the claim’s legal validity to determine whether it is nonetheless moot.”
• “Just as the Black tester plaintiff’s lack of intent to rent an apartment in Havens Realty ‘d[id] not negate the simple fact of injury,’ neither does Laufer’s lack of intent to book a room at Acheson’s Inn negate her standing.” (alteration in original

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).