Arnold v. Frost

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• setting forth the requirements of Section 876(b) and concluding that \the theory of joint liability for the encouragement of tortious conduct adopted by the court of appeals cannot apply to appellant under these circumstances\
• setting forth the requirements of Section 876(b) and concluding that “the theory of joint liability for the encouragement of tortious conduct adopted by the court of appeals cannot apply to appellant under these circumstances”
• setting forth the requirements of Section 876(b) and concluding that “the theory of joint liability for the encouragement of tortious conduct adopted by the court of appeals cannot apply to appellant under these circumstances”
• where the court found the dramshop not liable because the sale of the alcohol was made to a nonintoxicated patron without knowledge that the drink was in fact for an intoxicated patron

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).