Silkowski v. Hacker

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that negligent supervision was not redressable as a third-party contract beneficiary claim
• holding that negligent supervision was not redressable as a third-party contract beneficiary claim
• finding that the claim against the county sounded in tort, thereby falling within the immunity provisions of the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act; however, had the claim sounded in contract, the immunity provisions of the Act would have been avoided
• “Appellants’ argument, while an ingenious attempt to avoid the immunity provisions of the Act, fails to do so. Their claim against the County as an additional defendant clearly sounds in tort ....”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).