Moore v. Bird Engineering Co. (2002)

green · 61 citation events across 7 courts. Showing the 5 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Yellow 1 Green 4

Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then

200220142026

Sort: By significance · Most recent

yellow Parks v. Persels & Associates, LLC (In Re Kinderknecht) (2012)

But See · Bankr. D. Kan. · signal: but see · 2 citations in this opinion

Gonzales, supra (intent to deceive is a required element, interpreting § 50-626(b)(2) and (3)); But see Moore v. Bird Engineering Co., P.A., 273 Kan. 2, 15-16 , 41 P.3d 755 (2002) (distinguishing Gonzales and concluding that intent to deceive is not required under § 50 — 626(b)(1)).

green Williamson v. Amrani (2007)

Cited (see also) · Kan. · signal: see, e.g. · 11 citations in this opinion

See, e.g., Moore v. Bird Engineering Co., 273 Kan. 2, 10-13 , 41 P.3d 755 (2002) (KCPA applies to professional engineer who sells engineering services to consumer; engineer is a supplier and the sale of services is consumer transaction within scope of KCPA).

KCPA applies to professional engineer who sells engineering services to consumer; engineer is a supplier and the sale of services is consumer transaction within scope of KCPA

green Berry v. National Medical Services, Inc. (2009)

Cited · Kan. Ct. App. · signal: see · 4 citations in this opinion

See Moore v. Bird Engineering Co., 273 Kan. 2 , Syl. ¶ 4, 41 P.3d 755 (2002) (finding that an engineer who designed a bridge provided a service under the Act).

finding that an engineer who designed a bridge provided a service under the Act

green Crandall v. Grbic (2006)

Cited · Kan. Ct. App. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion

See Moore v. Bird Engineering Co., 273 Kan. 2, 15-17 , 41 P.3d 755 (2002) (discussion of legislative histoiy and differing intent requirements of these three provisions).

discussion of legislative histoiy and differing intent requirements of these three provisions

green Moral v. PHH Mortgage Corporation (2023)

Cited · D. Kan. · signal: see

See Moore v. Bird Eng’g Co., P.A., 41 P.3d 755, 764 (Kan. 2002). 5 Even if the Court were to allow Plaintiffs to proceed with their theory that the release is invalid because Defendants lacked a proper power of attorney (a theory that Defendants tried to preemptively address in their motion), the claim would not survive.