Pavlik v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

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 defendant had actual notice where the plaintiff was told by an employee that spilled the conditioner that the conditioner should have been cleaned up, and where her father was told by another employee that a clerk was supposed to clean it up but did not
• “Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is inadmissible unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the rule”
• “If the plaintiff cannot establish an element of [his] cause of action, summary judgment for the defendant is proper.”
• “[hjearsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is inadmissible unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the rule”
• \[H]earsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is inadmissible unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the rule.\
• \[H]earsay is an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted and is inadmissible unless it falls within one of the recognized exceptions to the rule.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).