Broadus v. Chevron USA, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• generally recognizing “special relationships” and “special circumstances” can overcome the general “no-duty” rule, but only in instances in which a business had actual or constructive knowledge of criminal activity that could endanger an invitee
• “Broadus also argues that he was a business invitee of Chevron and Larry Ayres d/b/a Regency Chevron and argues that a ‘special relationship’ existed between him and the defendants. As above noted, no special relationship was established by the facts of this case.”
• “Broadus also argues that he was a business invitee of Chev- ron and Larry Ayres d/b/a Regency Chevron and argues that a ‘special relationship’ existed between him and the defendants. As above noted, no special relationship was established by the facts of this case.”
• “Broadus also argues that he was a business invitee of Chev- ron and Larry Ayres d/b/a Regency Chevron and argues that a ‘special relationship’ existed between him and the defendants. As above noted, no special relationship was established by the facts of this case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).