7 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 24 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Nivens v. Corner.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nivens v. Corner Anchor | green | “a business owes a duty to its invitees to protect them from imminent criminal harm and reasonably foreseeable criminal conduct by third persons.” | 6 |
| 2 | Hutchins v. 1001 Fourth Avenue Associates | green | “the usual case where a duty may be found to protect others from third party criminal assault involves a business and its invitee” | 3 |
| 3 | Miller v. Staton | green | “evidence of conduct of patrons on prior occasions ... to show similar conduct could reasonably have been anticipated.” | 3 |
| 4 | Berglund v. Spokane County | green | “the financial burden, technical considerations, and other factual circumstances are all factors to be considered in determining whether or not the defendant complied with its duty to use reasonable care.” | 3 |
| 5 | Tae Kim v. Budget Rent A Car Systems, Inc. | green | “this court has rejected utilization of high crime rates as a basis for imposing a tort duty” | 3 |
| 6 | Christensen v. Royal School District No. 160 | green | “existence of a legal duty is a question of law and 'depends on mixed considerations of logic, common sense, justice, policy, and precedent” | 3 |
| 7 | Wilbert v. Metropolitan Park District | green | “ordinarily, foreseeability is a jury question and a criminal act can be held unforeseeable as a matter of law only 'if the occurrence is so highly extraordinary or improbable as to be wholly beyond the range of expectability.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.