![Emrie v. Tice](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![Emrie v. Tice](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
Emrie v. Tice
174 Kan. 739, 258 P.2d 332, KS.0042127(1953)
-
- 0,99 €
-
- 0,99 €
Publisher Description
The opinion of the court was delivered by The petition in a malpractice case was framed on two separate theories. The first cause of action was based on specific allegations of negligence. The second cause of action was predicated on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Defendant appeals from the orders overruling his demurrer to each count contending neither stated a cause of action.