Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Angeles v. Coast Engineering Contractors CA4/3
Lonberg explained: “The ADA is comprised of three parts,” one prohibiting “discrimination against the disabled with regard to employment,” a second prohibiting “discrimination against the disabled by public entities,” and the third part “which prohibits discrimination against the disabled with regard to access to commercial buildings. [Citation.] The text of each title follows the same basic structure” with “one provision which sets forth a rule of liability that prohibits ‘discrimination’ against the disabled by certain individuals,” followed by “provisions which set…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rosa v. Lewis Foods of 42nd Street, LLC
(2×)
That “general rule” limits the entities that can be liable for discrimination to owners, lessors, lessees, and operators but “does not define what constitutes ‘discrimination.’ ” Lonberg v. Sanborn Theaters Inc., 259 F.3d 1029, 1032 (9th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
John Lonberg v. Sanborn Theaters Inc
(2×)
ORDER O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge: 1 The opinion filed August 6, 2001 [ 259 F.3d 1029 ], is hereby ordered amended as follows: 2 Slip Op. at 10115 [259 F.3d at 1032]: In the first sentence of the first paragraph, change "party to the appeal" to "party to the action." 3 Slip Op. at 10123 [259 F.3d at 1036]: After the last sentence of Part III.D., ending in "by the district court," insert a footnote that reads: 4 The appellants and amicus raise the issue of Chevron deference.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lonberg v. Sanborn Theaters Inc.
(2×)
The opinion filed August 6, 2001 [ 259 F.3d 1029 ], is hereby ordered amended as follows: Slip Op. at 10115 [259 F.3d at 1032]: In the first sentence of the first paragraph, change “party to the appeal” to “party to the action”.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rios v. United States Department of Justice Ex Rel. United States
In re O’Bryan, 399 F.2d 916, 918 (10th Cir.1968) (“The test as to the application of the 60 day period is not whether the United States might be concerned or interested in the final judgment, but whether it is a party to the action in which the judgment was entered.”); see also Lonberg v. Sanborn Theaters Inc., 259 F.3d 1029, 1031 (9th Cir.2001) ("It is of no moment that the United States is not a party to the appeal in question.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John Lonberg, an Individual Ruthee Goldkorn, an Individual, and United States of America, Intervenor
v.
Sanborn Theaters Inc, a California Corporation D/B/A Market Place Cinema Salts, Troutman & Kaneshiro Inc., a California Corporation West Coast Realty Investors Inc., a Delaware Corporation
v.
Sanborn Theaters Inc, a California Corporation D/B/A Market Place Cinema Salts, Troutman & Kaneshiro Inc., a California Corporation West Coast Realty Investors Inc., a Delaware Corporation
99-56221.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 6, 2001.
Published
259 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2001)
JOHN LONBERG, AN INDIVIDUAL; RUTHEE GOLDKORN, AN INDIVIDUAL, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, INTERVENOR
v.
SANBORN THEATERS INC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION D/B/A MARKET PLACE CINEMA; SALTS, TROUTMAN & KANESHIRO INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; WEST COAST REALTY INVESTORS INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
No. 99-56221
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Argued and Submitted February 7, 2001
Filed August 6, 2001
NOTE: SEE AMENDED OPINION AT 271 F.3d 953