Spencer v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

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 abuse its discretion in preventing a proposed expert in snow removal techniques from opining about whether the defendant’s actions contributed to the plaintiffs injuries
• noting that an expert was not required to show that melting snow can create ice
• noting that an expert was not required to show that melting snow can create ice
• affirming this Court’s finding that a forensic architect was not qualified as an expert on ice and snow removal
• noting an architect was not “an expert on ice and snow removal”
• excluding proffered expert testimony as the “expert opinions were more commons sense than formulated opinions...expert testimony is [not] required to argue to a jury that a pile of snow in a parking lot is going to melt”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).