Marie Saldana v. Kmart Corporation Marie Saldana, in No. 99-4055

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that affirmative evidence must amount to more than a scintilla, but may amount to less than a preponderance, to defeat summary judgment
• explaining that a “party opposing summary judgment may not rest upon the mere allegations” in its complaint but rather “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial”
• granting summary judgment to a defendant where “[plaintiff]’s case rests solely on speculation that events unfolded in such a way as to render [defendant liable].”
• affirming summary judgment where there was a “complete absence of relevant evidence ... on the critical question of how long the wax was on the floor”
• discussing testimony by the same expert who testified in the present case
• “Standing alone, the mere presence of dust on [a liquid] after [a] fall does not inform any decision as to the amount of time the [substance] was on the floor before the fall.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).