Khalil v. City of Chicago

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that because pedestrians were not intended users of an alley, defendant owed pedestrians no duty to maintain the alley in a reasonably safe condition under section 3- 102(a)
• no duty to pedestrian using alley as if it were a sidewalk by walking down middle of alley
• duty is a question of law, and a municipality’s duty to maintain its property is limited by section 3 — 102
• although property may be commonly used for purposes other than those intended by the municipality, such permitted uses do not alter the municipality’s intent
• although property may be commonly used for purposes other than those intended by the municipality, such permitted uses do not alter the municipality's intent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).