Miller v. Zaret

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that requests, such as the plaintiffs, “push the inquiry outside [the] ordinary boundaries” of the field of existing duties
• explaining that \the courts' reluctance to impose new affirmative duties reflects that the wider field of common-law duties is governed appropriately by existing broad precepts which have been well traveled\
• noting that, in certain instances, this Court has prioritized other policy factors over foreseeability
• noting that, in certain instances, this Court has prioritized other policy factors over foreseeability
• stating that “the present appeal does not afford an adequate foundation to make an informed social policy assessment which would support the imposition of a new affirmative duty on physicians to make third-party interventions”
• stating it “is the Legislature’s chief function to set public policy and the courts’ role to enforce that policy, subject to constitutional limitations” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).