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.
7 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 89 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 Finca Santa Elena, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Finca Santa Elena, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers Anchor | green | “broad discretion to consider relevant and competent evidence” | 32 |
| 2 | Sigmund v. Starwood Urban Investment | green | “exacting,' 'demanding,' 'precise,' and 'restrictive.” | 11 |
| 3 | Giles v. Shell Oil Corp. | green | “armed with that actual or constructive knowledge failed to adequately supervise” | 10 |
| 4 | Giles v. Shell Oil Corp. | green | “it is incumbent upon a party to show that an employer knew or should have known its employee behaved in a dangerous or otherwise incompetent manner, and that the employer, armed with that actual or constructive knowledge, failed to adequately supervise the employee.” | 10 |
| 5 | Sigmund v. Starwood Urban Investment | green | “requires proof that the specific type of crime, not just crime in general, be particularly foreseeable at the relevant location” | 10 |
| 6 | Giles v. Shell Oil Corp. | green | “dangerous or otherwise incompetent manner” | 9 |
| 7 | Sigmund v. Starwood Urban Investment | green | “while a plaintiff is not required to show previous occurrences of the particular type of harm at issue, the d.c. court of appeals requires proof that the specific type of crime, not just crime in general, be particularly foreseeable at the relevant location.” | 7 |
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.