78 Cited authorities

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (1983) Cited 21,574 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding a civil-rights plaintiff can recover attorney's fees for claims that "involve a common core of facts or will be based on related legal theories," even if only one of those claims arises under a fee-shifting statute
Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.
510 U.S. 517 (1994) Cited 2,824 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the Copyright Act fee-shifting statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, defendants and plaintiffs are to be treated the same, contrary to the Court's interpretation of § 1988
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr
518 U.S. 470 (1996) Cited 2,417 times 35 Legal Analyses
Holding that the presence of a state-law damages remedy for violations of FDA requirements does not impose an additional requirement upon medical device manufacturers but "merely provides another reason for manufacturers to comply with . . . federal law"
Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n
434 U.S. 412 (1978) Cited 3,648 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that for a defendant to recoup attorneys fees under § 706(k) of Title VII, a court must find that the plaintiff litigated his or her claim beyond the point where it became “frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless” or where plaintiff acted in bad faith
Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council
530 U.S. 363 (2000) Cited 984 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a state Burma sanctions bill conflicted with a federal Burma sanctions bill because it undermined Congress's delegation to the President of "flexible and effective authority" to adjust all sanctions in response to changing conditions
Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Ass'n
505 U.S. 88 (1992) Cited 891 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding that "nonapproved state regulation of occupational safety and health issues for which a federal standard is in effect is impliedly preempted" by OSHA's standard
Jones v. Rath Packing Co.
430 U.S. 519 (1977) Cited 1,187 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the presumption is weaker, if triggered at all, where there is not a tradition of state legislation
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises
390 U.S. 400 (1968) Cited 1,451 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a barbeque vendor must serve black customers even if he perceives such service as vindicating racial equality, in violation of his religious beliefs
Hines v. Davidowitz
312 U.S. 52 (1941) Cited 2,184 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Alien Registration Act of 1940 preempted Pennsylvania's alien registration requirements
Fischer v. SJB-P.D. Inc.
214 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 979 times
Holding that a district court may reduce hours to offset "poorly documented" billing
Section 12101 - Findings and purpose
42 U.S.C. § 12101 Cited 23,323 times 65 Legal Analyses
Finding a pattern of " unnecessary discrimination and prejudice" that "costs the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and nonproductivity"
Section 51 - Unruh Civil Rights Act
Cal. Civ. Code § 51 Cited 4,614 times 35 Legal Analyses
Incorporating ADA violations
Section 12181 - Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 12181 Cited 3,451 times 27 Legal Analyses
Including "grocery store" and "pharmac[ies]" whose operations "affect commerce" within the definition of "public accommodation"
Section 12205 - Attorney's fees
42 U.S.C. § 12205 Cited 1,583 times 1 Legal Analyses
Permitting the court to allow costs to "the prevailing party"
Section 12188 - Enforcement
42 U.S.C. § 12188 Cited 1,331 times 5 Legal Analyses
Providing that the remedies available to individuals are set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3, which allows a private right of action only for injunctive relief for violations of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Section 54 - Right to full and free use of streets, highways, sidewalks, public building, other public places
Cal. Civ. Code § 54 Cited 1,113 times 5 Legal Analyses
Defining "disability" as an "impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of the individual"
Section 12201 - Construction
42 U.S.C. § 12201 Cited 753 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that "an employer has no duty to accommodate an employee it regards as disabled"
Section 2000a-3 - Civil actions for injunctive relief
42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3 Cited 728 times
Requiring notice to state authority as prerequisite to filing civil action when state law prohibits public accommodations discrimination
Section 54.1 - Entitlement to equal access to accommodations, advantages, facilities, etc.
Cal. Civ. Code § 54.1 Cited 708 times
Defining "service dog" as "any dog individually trained to the requirements of the individual with a disability"
Section 19955 - Purpose; availability of sanitary facilities for physically handicapped
Cal. Health & Saf. Code § 19955 Cited 514 times 1 Legal Analyses
(a) The purpose of this part is to insure that public accommodations or facilities constructed in this state with private funds adhere to the provisions of Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 4450) of Division 5 of Title 1 of the Government Code. For the purposes of this part "public accommodation or facilities" means a building, structure, facility, complex, or improved area which is used by the general public and shall include auditoriums, hospitals, theaters, restaurants, hotels, motels, stadiums
Section 1630.1 - Purpose, applicability, and construction
29 C.F.R. § 1630.1 Cited 210 times 1 Legal Analyses
Noting "broad scope of protection under the ADA" and that "question of whether an individual meets the definition of disability under this part should not demand extensive analysis"
Rule 8.278 - Costs on appeal
Cal. R. 8.278 Cited 4,809 times
(a)Award of costs (1) Except as provided in this rule, the party prevailing in the Court of Appeal in a civil case other than a juvenile case is entitled to costs on appeal. (2) The prevailing party is the respondent if the Court of Appeal affirms the judgment without modification or dismisses the appeal. The prevailing party is the appellant if the court reverses the judgment in its entirety. (3) If the Court of Appeal reverses the judgment in part or modifies it, or if there is more than one notice
Rule 8.1105 - Publication of appellate opinions
Cal. R. 8.1105 Cited 2,089 times
(a)Supreme Court All opinions of the Supreme Court are published in the Official Reports. (b)Courts of Appeal and appellate divisions Except as provided in (e), an opinion of a Court of Appeal or a superior court appellate division is published in the Official Reports if a majority of the rendering court certifies the opinion for publication before the decision is final in that court. (Subd (b) amended effective July 23, 2008; adopted effective April 1, 2007.) (c)Standards for certification An opinion
Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply
Cal. R. 8.504 Cited 21 times
(a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)

JANKEY v. LEE

78 Cited authorities

Holding a civil-rights plaintiff can recover attorney's fees for claims that "involve a common core of facts or will be based on related legal theories," even if only one of those claims arises under a fee-shifting statute

Holding that under the Copyright Act fee-shifting statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, defendants and plaintiffs are to be treated the same, contrary to the Court's interpretation of § 1988

Holding that the presence of a state-law damages remedy for violations of FDA requirements does not impose an additional requirement upon medical device manufacturers but "merely provides another reason for manufacturers to comply with . . . federal law"

Holding that for a defendant to recoup attorneys fees under § 706(k) of Title VII, a court must find that the plaintiff litigated his or her claim beyond the point where it became “frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless” or where plaintiff acted in bad faith

Holding that a state Burma sanctions bill conflicted with a federal Burma sanctions bill because it undermined Congress's delegation to the President of "flexible and effective authority" to adjust all sanctions in response to changing conditions

Holding that "nonapproved state regulation of occupational safety and health issues for which a federal standard is in effect is impliedly preempted" by OSHA's standard

Holding that the presumption is weaker, if triggered at all, where there is not a tradition of state legislation

Holding that a barbeque vendor must serve black customers even if he perceives such service as vindicating racial equality, in violation of his religious beliefs

Holding that the Alien Registration Act of 1940 preempted Pennsylvania's alien registration requirements

Holding that a district court may reduce hours to offset "poorly documented" billing

Finding a pattern of " unnecessary discrimination and prejudice" that "costs the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and nonproductivity"

Incorporating ADA violations

Including "grocery store" and "pharmac[ies]" whose operations "affect commerce" within the definition of "public accommodation"

Permitting the court to allow costs to "the prevailing party"

Providing that the remedies available to individuals are set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3, which allows a private right of action only for injunctive relief for violations of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Defining "disability" as an "impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of the individual"

Holding that "an employer has no duty to accommodate an employee it regards as disabled"

Requiring notice to state authority as prerequisite to filing civil action when state law prohibits public accommodations discrimination

Defining "service dog" as "any dog individually trained to the requirements of the individual with a disability"

Noting "broad scope of protection under the ADA" and that "question of whether an individual meets the definition of disability under this part should not demand extensive analysis"