Tavaris Roshwn Curgil v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• “Assuming, without deciding, that the problem of individual variability in response to alcohol prevents a plaintiff from relying exclusively on expert opinion to make out a case of apparent intoxication.”
• evidence of later intoxication may be \admitted for purposes of bolstering other evidence concerning a patron's condition at the time alcohol was served\
• plaintiff may prove apparent intoxication of bar patron “by direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of the two”
• blood alcohol test results, combined with specific information concerning the intoxicated person's normal reaction to excessive alcohol consumption and expert’s opinion regarding the normal reaction to excessive alcohol consumption, was sufficient to survive summary judgment
• civil action for negligent service requires evidence that intoxication apparent at time of service
• “a tavern keeper does not owe a duty to refuse to serve liquor to an intoxicated person unless the tavern keeper knows or reasonably should have known that the patron is intoxicated”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).