Munson v. Del Taco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
522 F.3d 997 · 2008
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently July 2024
11 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (§ 302 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on 52 Cal. 3d 1142 - Harris v. Capital Growth Investors XIV · Mangold v. California Public Utilities Commission · Lentini v. California Center for the Arts · Aceves v. Allstate Insurance · Mark H. ex rel. Michelle H. v. Lemahieu
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Plaintiff Kenneth Munson has a physical disability that requires that he use a wheelchair. Plaintiff alleges that he visited the Del Taco restaurant in San Bernardino, California, which is owned and operated by Defendant Del Taco, Inc. Plaintiff further alleges that, at the Del Taco restaurant, he encountered architectural barriers that denied him legally required access to the parking area and restrooms.[ 3 ] “Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant in the Central District of California. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (‘ADA’), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 , and the Unruh [Civil Rights] Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 . Plaintiff sought injunctive relief, damages, and attorney fees under California Civil Code section 52 for the alleged Unruh Act violations. “On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff. The court reasoned that ‘there is no genuine issue of fact that an architectural barrier existed’ and that ‘there is no genuine issue of fact that the restroom doorway widening was readily achievable.’ Consequently, the court ruled ‘that there is no genuine issue of fact that an ADA violation occurred. Thus, [Defendant] is liable under the Unruh [Civil Rights] Act and [Plaintiff] is entitled to pursue statutory damages.’ “The parties stipulated to $12,000 in damages under the Unruh [Civil Rights] Act in lieu of holding a jury trial on the issue, with Defendant reserving the right to ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“1. Must a plaintiff who seeks damages under California Civil Code section 52, claiming the denial of full and equal treatment on the basis of disability in violation of the Unruh Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51 , prove “intentional discrimination”? 2. If the answer to Question 1 is “yes,” what does “intentional discrimination” mean in this context? For example, does intentional discrimination mean [providing examples].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[o]ur duty as a federal court ... 'is to ascertain and apply the existing California law.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.