Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Vinokur

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that post- Gipson \foreseeability is not a part of the duty inquiry and those portions of pre- Gipson cases relying on foreseeability when addressing the issue are no longer valid\
• acknowledging that there was “no Arizona case addressing whether a college 21 or university owes its students a duty of reasonable care for off-campus activities”
• “No Arizona case 24 has recognized a duty by a university or a college in any context comparable to this case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).