Uihlein v. Albertson's, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an assault in a grocery store was not foreseeable because no robberies or assaults had ever occurred in the store
• holding that an assault in a grocery store was not foreseeable because no robberies or assaults had ever occurred in the store
• noting that this court previously had adopted standard set out in Restatement (Second) of Torts section 344 comment f (1965) “as being a part of the law of this state”
• noting that this court previously had adopted standard set out in Restatement (Second) of Torts section 344 comment f (1965) “as being a part of the law of this state”
• noting that this court previously had adopted standard set out in Restatement (Second) of Torts section 344 comment f (1965) “as being a part of the law of this state”
• declining to find shoplifting alone created foreseeability of violent crime, despite the store’s location in a “high crime” area and the decision of nearby stores to employ security guards

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).