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 11 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 Amatulli v. Delhi Construction Corp..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Amatulli v. Delhi Construction Corp. Anchor | green | “unencumbered by any trace of facts or data and thus should be given no probative force whatsoever” | 4 |
| 2 | Mokszki v. Pratt | green | “required to establish as a matter of law that it maintained the property in question in a reasonably safe condition and that it neither created the allegedly dangerous condition existing thereon nor had actual or constructive notice thereof” | 4 |
| 3 | Lezama v. 34-15 Parsons Blvd, LLC | green | “latch or mechanism to keep the door open would provide a moment of pause for the person closing the door to see if somebody was coming up the stairs before closing the door.” | 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.