Crooker v. Tallman

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “Landreth contained no conclusion as to whether the affiant is required to practice in the same sub-specialty as the defendant under chapter 150.”
• “We cannot agree with MSM’s contention we must evaluate certificates of merit on the basis of sub-specialties.”
• “[F]ailure to file a certificate of merit with the original petition cannot be cured by amendment.”
• plaintiff filed certificate of merit with amended petition adding architect as party

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).