Grafitti-Valenzuela v. City of Phoenix

How courts have described this case

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

• summarizing the holding of Rogers as “stating ‘causation-in- 27 fact’ is required to find proximate cause”
• affirming summary judgment for city because it did not breach its duty to keep a bus stop safe for users and the lack of shelter and lighting at the bus stop did not cause a child’s abduction
• a court may grant summary judgment when a party fails to demonstrate a material question of fact upon which a reasonable jury could find causation
• “The scope and nature of the conduct required to satisfy a duty to keep premises reasonably safe is limited to keeping them safe from . . . foreseeable harms.”
• “[I]n approaching the question of negligence or unreasonable risk, ‘the courts set outer limits. A jury will not be permitted to require a party to take a precaution that is clearly unreasonable.’” (quoting Rogers v. Retrum, 170 Ariz. 399, 402-03 n.4 (App. 1991
• “For a claim or defense to withstand a motion for summary judgment and be presented to a jury, the proponent of the claim or defense must present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find, directly or by inference, that the probabilities favor the proponent.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).