Michael v. Jones

How courts have described this case

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

• discarding the public-duty doctrine for municipal defendants in part because the doctrine never applied in that jurisdiction to state tort claims
• discarding the public-duty doctrine for municipal defendants in part because the doctrine never applied in that jurisdiction to state tort claims
• discarding the public-duty doctrine for municipal defendants in part because the doctrine never applied in that jurisdiction to state tort claims
• “The existence of a duty under particular circumstances depends on what risks, if any, are reasonably foreseeable.”
• “[T]he public duty rule impermissibly conflicts with the abrogation of common law municipal immunity . . . .”
• ―Courts . . . have found that the public duty rule and its exceptions cause legal confusion, tortured analyses, and inequitable results in practice.‖

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).