Maple v. City of Omaha

How courts have described this case

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

• noting “[n]owhere [in tort claims act] is there found an exemption for the exercise of a duty owed to the public generally”
• noting \[n]owhere [in tort claims act] is there found an exemption for the exercise of a duty owed to the public generally\
• noting “plaintiff still must show that a duty was owed to him, that this duty was breached, and that an injury was proximately caused by that breach”
• rejecting the public-duty doctrine but nonetheless concluding as a matter of law that the defendant did not breach the duty it owed
• acknowledging some exceptions to liability in Nebraska’s political subdivisions tort claims act, but noting “[njowhere is there found an exemption for the exercise of a duty owed to the public generally”
• acknowledging some exceptions to liability in Nebraska’s political subdivisions tort claims act, but noting “[n]owhere 26 is there found an exemption for the exercise of a duty owed to the public generally”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).