Scharrel 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 testimony concerning hedonic damages is inad- missible under Colorado law
• noting that the expert’s opinions on hedonic loss did not assist the jury
• upholding the general statutory cap on noneconomic damages against equal protection and due process challenges under the Colorado and Federal Constitutions as well as a right of access to the courts challenge under our state constitution
• affirming admission into evidence of report identifying 17,000 incidents of falling merchandise that resulted in injuries to customers at Wal-Mart stores

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).