Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 12 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 Fung v. Japan Airlines Co..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fung v. Japan Airlines Co. Anchor | green | “by merely plowing the snow, as required by the contract, krotz's actions could not be said 'to have created or exacerbated a dangerous condition” | 4 |
| 2 | K.J.D.E. Corp. v. Hartford Fire Insurance | green | “such negligence would amount to a finding that krotz may have merely failed to become an instrument for good, which is insufficient to impose a duty of care upon a party not in privity of contract with the injured party” | 4 |
| 3 | Eisleben v. Dean | green | “the contract between krotz and the apartment defendants was not so comprehensive and exclusive that it entirely displaced the apartment defendants' duty to maintain the premises safely, such that krotz owed a duty to plaintiff” | 4 |
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.