Martinez v. City of Lakewood

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[t]he concept of a public duty cannot stand either with the enactment of the statute abrogating sovereign immunity, nor in instances where there is a common law duty of a public entity to the plaintiff’
• recognizing application of the “public duty — special duty dichotomy results in ‘a duty to none where there is a duty to all’ ”
• recognizing application of the \public duty — special duty dichotomy results in `a duty to none where there is a duty to all'\
• noting that the state’s governmental immunity statute, although not directly applicable to the issue of public duty, addressed the issue of sovereign immunity and stated that the intention of the legislature was to treat the public entity as if it were a private person
• noting the “concept of a public duty cannot stand either with the enactment of the statute abrogating sovereign immunity, nor in instances where there is a common law duty of a public entity to the plaintiff’
• ‘The concept of a public duty cannot stand ... with the enactment of the statute abrogating sovereign immunity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).