State of West Virginia v. David Ray Thomas

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that strict liability and common law negligence claims brought after passage of 2005 amendment to the Ohio Products Liability Act are abrogated
• explaining that parties must “point to the evidence with specificity and particularity in the relevant brief”
• stating that parties may not simply dump “a pile of paper on the district judge’s desk,” but rather have an obligation “to point to the evidence with specificity and particularity”
• explaining that “reconsideration of our precedents is justified” when intervening state appellate court decisions “provide the best indication” of how the state’s highest court “would rule on [an] issue … [of] state law”
• party opposing summary judgment has burden of pointing to evidence creating a factual dispute in a particularized manner
• “[I]t was [plaintiffs] job to point to the evidence with specificity and particularity in the relevant brief rather than just dropping a pile of paper on the district judge’s desk and expecting him to sort it out.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).