Catri v. Hopkins

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “decision making involved in the maintenance of an intersection, and in particular the placement of a traffic-control mechanism, is a discretionary activity”
• holding decision making involved in maintenance of intersection was discretionary activity protected by public duty doctrine
• explaining that the purpose of the exception is \to afford individuals the necessary recourse for tortuous injury sustained as a result of egregious governmental conduct\
• noting that the state requires “sufficient time necessary to implement” its discretionary decisions
• state's decision not to install a traffic light at an intersection, despite public demand, was not actionable or egregious conduct
• “Although the state’s sluggish reaction to public outcry to install a signal at the particular intersection in question is regrettable, this [C]ourt cannot invent liability from the slowest of actions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).