Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzalez

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that testimony based on a witness’s speculative, subjective opinion is of no evidentiary value
• holding that if the evidence permits two equally plausible but opposing inferences then the evidence proves neither
• noting that a business is not an insurer of an invitee’s safety on its premises
• holding evidence of dirt in macaroni salad was no evidence it had been on floor long enough to charge store with knowledge
• noting that no witnesses had testified that they had seen or were aware of the hazard before the plaintiff slipped on it
• holding evidence of footprints and trackmarks in “fresh” substance on floor could “no more support the inference that [spill] accumulated dirt over a long period of time than it can support the opposite inference”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).