Remet Corp. v. City of Chicago

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, under the public duty rule, the city had no duty to provide uninterrupted water service for fire protection
• holding that, under the public duty rule, the city had no duty to provide uninterrupted water service for fire protection
• holding that judgment may be affirmed on any ground supported by the record
• holding that judgment may be affirmed on any ground supported by the record
• in dicta, observing that the public duty rule meant that the city had no duty to provide uninterrupted water service for firefighting purposes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).