Hall v. Fedor

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that expert testimony is normally required to establish the applicable standard of care except when the matter is within the common knowledge of laypersons
• holding hearsay evidence presented in response to summary judgment motion did not create a genuine issue of material fact because ”[o]ur appellate courts have interpreted Rule 56(e
• \[M]aterials used to support or refute a motion for summary judgment must be those which would be admissible in evidence.\
• “[S]ince false information is fabricated, not learned, the remedy for dissemination of such information is defamation, not malpractice.”
• “[S]ince false information is fabricated, not learned, the remedy for dissemination of such information is defamation, not malpractice.”
• \Our appellate courts have interpreted Rule 56(e) to mean materials used to support or refute a motion for summary judgment must be those [that] would be admissible in evidence.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).