discussing substantial compliance where plaintiff first serves individual at her place of business, but finding issue abandoned on appeal
Summary of this case from Spiess v. MeyersNo. 90,200.
December 19, 2003.
Appeal from the Douglas.
Unpublished Opinions Affirmed.
discussing substantial compliance where plaintiff first serves individual at her place of business, but finding issue abandoned on appeal
Summary of this case from Spiess v. Meyersstating that expert testimony is not necessary where the attorney's breach of duty is so clear and obvious that the determination that the attorney deviated from the standard of care is within the common knowledge of the trier of fact
Summary of this case from Wachovia Bank v. Jonesstating that expert testimony is not necessary where the attorney's breach of duty is so clear and obvious that the determination that the attorney deviated from the standard of care is within the common knowledge of the trier of fact
Summary of this case from Valentine v. Wattersstating that expert testimony is not necessary where the attorney's breach of duty is so clear and obvious that the determination that the attorney deviated from the standard of care is within the common knowledge of the trier of fact
Summary of this case from Guyton v. Huntstating that expert testimony is not necessary where the attorney's breach of duty is so clear and obvious that the determination that the attorney deviated from the standard of care is within the common knowledge of the trier of fact
Summary of this case from Guyton v. HuntFull title:McIntyre v. Rumsey
Court:Court of Appeals of Kansas
Date published: Dec 19, 2003
"Many other jurisdictions recognize a `common knowledge' exception to the requirement that a plaintiff in a…
Valentine v. WattersMany other jurisdictions recognize a "common knowledge" exception to the requirement that a plaintiff in a…