Roark v. Allen

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the diagnosis of skull fractures is not within the experience of the ordinary laymen” and therefore required expert testimony
• holding that “the diagnosis of skull fractures is not within the experience of the ordinary layman” and therefore required expert testimony
• holding that \the diagnosis of skull fractures is not within the experience of the ordinary layman\ and therefore required expert testimony
• holding that diagnosis of skull fractures is not within the experience of the layman
• holding that courts should construe pleadings liberally in absence of special exceptions
• holding opinion that physician should have warned of possible skull fracture was legally insufficient as it assumed physician was aware of fracture when there was no proof he was

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).