Meeks v. Rosa

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the trial court did not err in granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the plaintiff did not present legally sufficient evidence to show that the defendant knew or should have known of a condition that posed an unreasonable risk of harm
• holding that the trial court did not err in granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the plaintiff did not present legally sufficient evidence to show that the defendant knew or should have known of a condition that posed an unreasonable risk of harm
• holding that the trial court did not err in granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the plaintiff did not present legally sufficient evidence to show that the defendant knew or should have known of a condition that posed an unreasonable risk of harm
• holding that the trial court did not err in granting a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the plaintiff did not present legally sufficient evidence to show that the defendant knew or should have known of a condition that posed an unreasonable risk of harm
• generally describing the duty of care owed by one who controls property to a business invitee utilizing the property
• generally describing the duty of care owed by one who controls property to a business invitee utilizing the property

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).