K.S. v. J.D.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that some circumstantial evidence that defendant supplied majority of product during relevant time frame was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact that plaintiff was injured by defendant’s product in response to no- evidence summary judgment motion
• affirming no-evidence summary judgment for defendant in part because plaintiff’s expert testimony was insufficient to raise a fact issue that plaintiff was injured by defendant’s product

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).