Gunlock v. New Frontier Hotel Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that appellant’s claim for loss of consortium “was dependent upon the success of his wife’s claim . . . [and] [h]er claim not having been established, his must fail as well”
• concluding that appellant’s claim for loss of consortium “was dependent upon the success of his wife’s claim . . . [and] [h]er claim not having been established, his must fail as well”
• concluding that a two-foot-wide, four-inch-high planter containing foliage, running along a plate glass window was obvious as a matter of law, and thereby precluding a failure-to-warn action for injury caused by the planter
• concluding that a two-foot-wide, four-inch-high planter containing foliage, running along a plate glass window was obvious as a matter of law, and thereby precluding a failure-to-warn action for injury caused by the planter
• giving an instruction that stated, in part, that “the mere fact that an unfortunate or bad condition resulted to the decedent. . . does not prove or even imply, that the defendants ... by virtue of that fact alone, were negligent”
• “In the absence of negligence on the part of [defendant], a determination of whether Mrs. Gunlock is chargeable with contributory negligence is unnecessary.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).