6 California opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Urhausen v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc.green1 sentence2026Code, § 54.1, subd. (a)(3); see also id., subd. (d) [a violation of the right of an individual under the ADA constitutes a violation of the Disabled Persons Act]; accord, Baskin v. Hughes Realty, Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 184, 192 .) “ ‘Access’ refers not only to entry into a building but, more broadly, to the use of all facilities made available for general public use, such as restrooms, parking, and fixtures within a building.” (Urhausen v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 254, 261 (Urhausen).) Any person, firm, or corporation who denies full and equal access to or | 1 | 1 |
Baskin v. Hughes Realty, Inc.green1 sentence2026Code, § 54.1, subd. (a)(3); see also id., subd. (d) [a violation of the right of an individual under the ADA constitutes a violation of the Disabled Persons Act]; accord, Baskin v. Hughes Realty, Inc. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 184, 192 .) “ ‘Access’ refers not only to entry into a building but, more broadly, to the use of all facilities made available for general public use, such as restrooms, parking, and fixtures within a building.” (Urhausen v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 254, 261 (Urhausen).) Any person, firm, or corporation who denies full and equal access to or | 1 | 1 |
William Cohen v. City of Culver Citygreen1 sentence2022Cable, Inc. (9th Cir. 2007) 481 F.3d 724 , 731 [noting, without any analysis, that “[a]ny violation of the ADA necessarily constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act”]; Cohen v. City of Culver City (9th Cir. 2014) 754 F.3d 690, 701 [“a violation of the ADA constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act”]; Presta, at p. 1135 [concluding that “all violations of the ADA are actionable under the Unruh Act” and citing an unpublished 37 BRENNON B. v. SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Groban, J. district court case as support for that proposition]; R.N. v. Travis Unified Sch. | 1 | 1 |
K.M. Ex Rel. Bright v. Tustin Unified School Districtgreen1 sentence2020Bright v. Tustin 15 The entirety of the circuit court’s analysis of the Unruh Act claim was as follows: “A violation of the ADA constitutes a violation of the 55 Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2013) 725 F.3d 1088, 1094, fn. 1 (K.M.)16; Wagon v. Rocklin Unified School District (E.D. | 1 | 1 |
Munson v. Del Taco, Inc.green2 sentences2010As noted, the ADA provides only injunctive relief, not money damages. ( 42 U.S.C. § 12188 (a)(2).) In contrast, both the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the CDPA allow a plaintiff who is denied equal access or accommodation to sue for money damages. (§§ 52, 54.3.) The importance of this expansion of remedies was explained by the court in Pickern v. Best Western Timber Cove Lodge Marina (E.D.Cal. 2002) 194 F.Supp.2d 1128 : "After the ADA was passed in 1990, the California Disabled Persons Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act were amended to provide that a violation of the ADA constitutes a violation o 2010As noted, the ADA provides only injunctive relief, not money damages. ( 42 U.S.C. § 12188 (a)(2).) In contrast, both the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the CDPA allow a plaintiff who is denied equal access or accommodation to sue for money damages. (§§ 52, 54.3.) The importance of this expansion of remedies was explained by the court in Pickern v. Best Western Timber Cove Lodge Marina (E.D.Cal. 2002) 194 F.Supp.2d 1128 : "After the ADA was passed in 1990, the California Disabled Persons Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act were amended to provide that a violation of the ADA constitutes a violation o | 1 | 1 |
Rick Summers v. A. Teichert & Son, Inc., a California Corporationgreen1 sentence2010(See Summers v. A. Teichert & Son, Inc. (9th Cir. 1997) 127 F.3d 1150, 1154 ( Summers ) [adopting Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII (Title VII), standard in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC (1978) 434 U.S. 412, 421 [ 54 L.Ed.2d 648 , 98 S.Ct. 694 ] ( Christiansburg ), for defendants to recover attorney fees under the ADA].) [5] The Hubbard court went on to point out that a violation of the ADA constitutes a violation of the CDPA. | 1 | 1 |
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commissiongreen2 sentences2010(See Summers v. A. Teichert & Son, Inc. (9th Cir. 1997) 127 F.3d 1150, 1154 ( Summers ) [adopting Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII (Title VII), standard in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC (1978) 434 U.S. 412, 421 [ 54 L.Ed.2d 648 , 98 S.Ct. 694 ] ( Christiansburg ), for defendants to recover attorney fees under the ADA].) [5] The Hubbard court went on to point out that a violation of the ADA constitutes a violation of the CDPA. 2010(See Summers v. A. Teichert & Son, Inc. (9th Cir. 1997) 127 F.3d 1150, 1154 ( Summers ) [adopting Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII (Title VII), standard in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC (1978) 434 U.S. 412, 421 [ 54 L.Ed.2d 648 , 98 S.Ct. 694 ] ( Christiansburg ), for defendants to recover attorney fees under the ADA].) [5] The Hubbard court went on to point out that a violation of the ADA constitutes a violation of the CDPA. | 1 | 1 |
Madden v. Del Taco, Inc.green2 sentences2008As noted previously, the California Legislature has declared that a violation of the ADA constitutes a violation of the Unruh Civil *848 Rights Act and the Disabled Persons Act. 10 The ADA provides: “No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” ( 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (a).) The ADA defines discrimination in a place of public accommodat 2008As noted previously, the California Legislature has declared that a violation of the ADA constitutes a violation of the Unruh Civil *848 Rights Act and the Disabled Persons Act. 10 The ADA provides: “No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” ( 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (a).) The ADA defines discrimination in a place of public accommodat | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pickern v. Best Western Timber Cove Lodge Marina Resort
green
2 sentences2010As noted, the ADA provides only injunctive relief, not money damages. ( 42 U.S.C. § 12188 (a)(2).) In contrast, both the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the CDPA allow a plaintiff who is denied equal access or accommodation to sue for money damages. (§§ 52, 54.3.) The importance of this expansion of remedies was explained by the court in Pickern v. Best Western Timber Cove Lodge Marina (E.D.Cal. 2002) 194 F.Supp.2d 1128 : "After the ADA was passed in 1990, the California Disabled Persons Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act were amended to provide that a violation of the ADA constitutes a violation o 2008(Pickern v. Best Western Timber Cove Lodge Marina (E.D.Cal. 2002) 194 F.Supp.2d 1128, 1131 .) The expansion of California law to include ADA violations had other effects. | 2 | 2008–2010 |
Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc.
green
1 sentence2022Cable, Inc. (9th Cir. 2007) 481 F.3d 724 , 731 [noting, without any analysis, that “[a]ny violation of the ADA necessarily constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act”]; Cohen v. City of Culver City (9th Cir. 2014) 754 F.3d 690, 701 [“a violation of the ADA constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act”]; Presta, at p. 1135 [concluding that “all violations of the ADA are actionable under the Unruh Act” and citing an unpublished 37 BRENNON B. v. SUPERIOR COURT Opinion of the Court by Groban, J. district court case as support for that proposition]; R.N. v. Travis Unified Sch. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Molski v. Arciero Wine Group
green
1 sentence2010(See §§ 54, subd. (c), 54.1, subd. (d), 54.2, subd. (b).) ( Hubbard II, supra, 554 F.3d at p. 745 .) Consequently, the proof required to establish a violation of the CDPA and the ADA is identical, *1181 and "it is impossible to distinguish the fees necessary to defend against the CDPA claim from those expended in defense [of] the ADA claim ...." ( 554 F.3d at p. 745 .) Accordingly, "a grant of fees on the California cause of action is necessarily a grant of fees as to the ADA claim." ( Ibid. ) Because the ADA bars fees to defendants for nonfrivolous actions, the Hubbard court concluded "preemp | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Hubbard v. SOBRECK, LLC
green
2 sentences2010(See §§ 54, subd. (c), 54.1, subd. (d), 54.2, subd. (b).) ( Hubbard II, supra, 554 F.3d at p. 745 .) Consequently, the proof required to establish a violation of the CDPA and the ADA is identical, *1181 and "it is impossible to distinguish the fees necessary to defend against the CDPA claim from those expended in defense [of] the ADA claim ...." ( 554 F.3d at p. 745 .) Accordingly, "a grant of fees on the California cause of action is necessarily a grant of fees as to the ADA claim." ( Ibid. ) Because the ADA bars fees to defendants for nonfrivolous actions, the Hubbard court concluded "preemp 2010(See §§ 54, subd. (c), 54.1, subd. (d), 54.2, subd. (b).) ( Hubbard II, supra, 554 F.3d at p. 745 .) Consequently, the proof required to establish a violation of the CDPA and the ADA is identical, *1181 and "it is impossible to distinguish the fees necessary to defend against the CDPA claim from those expended in defense [of] the ADA claim ...." ( 554 F.3d at p. 745 .) Accordingly, "a grant of fees on the California cause of action is necessarily a grant of fees as to the ADA claim." ( Ibid. ) Because the ADA bars fees to defendants for nonfrivolous actions, the Hubbard court concluded "preemp | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.