Plaintiff sues his former lawyers for their alleged malpractice in not diligently pressing his negligence claim within the applicable Statute of Limitations. Upon demand, plaintiff served his bill of particulars but inadvertently forgot to answer Number 17. This question asked, in essence, which of the injuries described in answer to question Number 5 were considered permanent. Defendants moved for a direction that plaintiff serve a further bill of particulars as to item...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
