Ransom v. Leopold

How courts have described this case

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

• holding plaintiff did not substantially comply with the LGTCA’s notice requirement where attorney sent letter sent to wrong county
• stating that “substantial compliance exists when timely notice has been given in a manner that, although not technically correct, nevertheless has afforded actual notice of the tort claim or claims to the local government”
• observing that the LGTCA’s requirements apply to all torts, including constitutional ones
• [T]he relationship between the person or entity in fact notified and the person or entity that the statute requires be notified [is] so close, with respect to the handling of tort claims, that notice to one effectively constituted notice to the other.” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).