Mitchell v. Branch

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where nexus was lacking, restitution could not be imposed
• finding that UCATA was intended to end “[t]he inequity of equal contribution among joint tort-feasors” where one party had acted negligently and another had acted with “gross negligence and foolhardiness”
• “Where there is conflicting evidence ... on the issue of proximate causation, the question is one for the trier of fact.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).