Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Thompson

How courts have described this case

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

• reversing the denial of Walmart’s motion for judgment because “management of that store had no information from which they could have known that an accident of the kind which occurred in this case was likely to happen”
• reversing the denial of Walmart’s motion for judgment because “management of that store had no information from which they could have known that an accident of the kind which occurred in this case was likely to happen’
• the “standard required to support a wantonness claim is a high one and should remain such”
• “[T]he management of that store had no information from which they could have known that an accident of the kind which occurred in this case was likely to happen.”
• \This figure [167 accidents involving falling merchandise during a 5-year period] represents accidents in Wal-Mart stores across the entire state; this Court has held that on questions of premises liability accidents at other locations are irrelevant.\
• \This figure [167 accidents involving falling merchandise during a 5-year period] represents accidents in Wal-Mart stores across the entire state; this Court has held that on questions of premises liability accidents at other locations are irrelevant.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).