McDonald v. Marriott Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that unlike in Couts, summary judgment was warranted where the only evidence arguably supporting visible intoxication was the patron's own testimony that she believed she was loud and acting without coordination
• Under Pennsylvania's dram shop law, in order for to avoid summary judgment, the Plaintiffs must demonstrate a genuine issue of fact that the Defendant served alcohol to the injured party while he was visibly intoxicated and that it was that conduct that proximately caused the accident.
• Under Pennsylvania's dram shop law, in order for to avoid summary judgment, the Plaintiffs must demonstrate a genuine issue of fact that the Defendant served alcohol to the injured party while he was visibly intoxicated and that it was that conduct that proximately caused the accident.
• Under Pennsylvania's dram shop law, in order for to avoid summary judgment, the Plaintiffs must demonstrate a genuine issue 10 of fact that the Defendant served alcohol to the injured party while he was visibly intoxicated and that it was that conduct that proximately caused the accident.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).