Fritz v. McGrath

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that an expert opinion is not a prerequisite to discovery
• listing statements which are conclusory and thus inadmissible for the purpose of defeating a motion for summary judgment
• affidavits that consist merely of conclusory allegations and fail to set forth specific facts are insufficient to defeat summary judgment
• \[T]here is no requirement that [a plaintiff] have a full and specific `magic word' medical or legal opinion before the statute will be deemed to start running.\
• “Generally, we do not consider arguments broadly stated but never specifically argued.”
• where the court held that a party need not be specifically advised by an expert that, in the expert’s opinion, he or she received negligent treatment from a physician before a plaintiff is deemed to have discovered for purposes of the statute of limitations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).