Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Spates

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that temporal evidence of “how long the hazard was there” is required
• explaining that temporality, proximity, conspicuity, and longevity factor into the constructive-knowledge analysis
• observing that, with respect to an inconspicuous hazard present for potentially less than a minute, “[h]ad there been evidence [the hazard] had been on the floor for an extended period of time, reasonable jurors might assume that the employee [near the hazard] should have seen it”
• observing that, with respect to an inconspicuous hazard present for potentially less than a minute, “[h]ad there been evidence [the hazard] had been on the floor for an extended period of time, reasonable jurors might assume that the employee [near the hazard] should have seen it.”
• observing that, with respect to an inconspicuous hazard present for potentially less than a minute, “[h]ad there been evidence [the hazard] had been on the floor for an extended period of time, reasonable jurors might assume that the employee [near the hazard] should have seen it.”
• referring to “analyzing the combination of proximity, conspicuity, and longevity” when determining constructive notice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).