Camerlin v. Marshall

How courts have described this case

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

• ample evidence on which jury could have found that the area was not in control of the landlords
• if the condition “ ‘is open and obvious to them or to any ordinarily intelligent person in the exercise of due care, then no warning of any danger is necessary’ ”
• insurance policy covering more than one location inadmissible to establish control
• refusing to extend Young v. Garwacki, supra, to commercial premises
• motion to redact after close of evidence was untimely

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).