§Why CasetextPricing

JANKEY v. LEE

Appellant, Les Jankey, Reply to Answer to Petition for Review

5 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Munson v. Del Taco, Inc.

    46 Cal.4th 661 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 330 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff need not prove intentional discrimination to recover for an ADA violation under the Unruh Act

  3. Hubbard v. Sobreck, LLC

    531 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2008)   Cited 54 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the ADA preempts another California fee-shifting statute to the extent that it authorizes defendants to recover fees for defending against non-frivolous ADA claims

  4. Jankey v. Lee

    181 Cal.App.4th 1173 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 5 times

    No. A123006. February 5, 2010. [CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION ] Review Granted May 12, 2010 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of part III.C. Appeal from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, No. CGC07-463040, Patrick J. Mahoney, Judge. Thomas E. Frankovich for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Livingston Law Firm, Renee Welze Livingston and Jason G. Gong for Defendant and Respondent. OPINION

  5. Section 55 - Action to enjoin violation by person aggrieved

    Cal. Civ. Code § 55   Cited 259 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Providing for "reasonable" attorney's fees