Vancura v. Katris

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 employer’s duty to train or supervise “is best analyzed under principles generally appli-cablé to negligence cases”
• holding that an employer’s duty to train or supervise “is best analyzed under principles generally applicable to negligence cases”
• holding that “[a]n issue that is merely listed or included in a vague allegation of error is not ‘argued’ and will not satisfy the requirements of the rule”
• holding that “[a]n issue that is merely listed or included in a vague allegation of error is not ‘argued’ and will not satisfy the requirements of the rule”
• noting that in Van Horne this court focused on negligent hiring and retention, not negligent supervision
• noting that a plaintiff can assert a negligent supervision claim based on a particular duty or a general duty based on the employment relationship

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).