Wood v. Tice

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an expert report did not meet the statutory requirements because it did not name the defendants, state how the defendants breached the standard of care, demonstrate causation and damages, or include a curriculum vitae
• holding that an expert report did not meet the statutory requirements because it did not name the defendants, state how the defendants breached the standard of care, demonstrate causation and damages, or include a curriculum vitae
• holding that an expert report did not meet the statutory requirements because it did not name the defendants, state how the defendants breached the standard of care, demonstrate causation and damages, or include a curriculum vitae
• holding that an expert report did not meet the statutory requirements because it did not name the defendants, state how the defendants breached the standard of care, demonstrate causation and damages, or include a curriculum vitae
• providing expert report “must specifically refer to the defendant and discuss how that defendant breached the applicable standard of care”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).