- 12 - Fono v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 680, 694 (1982), affd. without published opinion 749 F.2d 37 (9th Cir. 1984). That intent is clearly expressed in the language of the release and pretrial order. We do not need to look further. We also find persuasive the lack of any reference to personal injuries in the amended complaint and/or pretrial order. Petitioners never made a claim for or reference to personal injuries suffered on the job in either. The complaint contained only a challenge to the exempt status of certain State employees and asserted those employees’ rights to receive overtime compensation. Though notice pleading is allowed by the Kansas Code of Civil Procedure, Rules Civ. Proc., Kan. Stat. Ann. sec. 60-208(e)(1) (1994), the short plain statement of the claim is sufficient only if it gives the defendant “fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the ground upon which it rests.” Rinsley v. Frydman, 559 P.2d 334, 338 (Kan. 1977) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)). Though it is not necessary to spell out a legal theory of relief in the pleadings, the opponent must be apprised of the facts that entitle the plaintiff to relief. See Oller v. Kincheloe’s, Inc., 681 P.2d 630, 637 (Kan. 1984). Petitioners alleged no facts that provide even a hint of personal injury or illness. Petitioners attempt to justify the lack of facts about injury or illness by claiming that the pretrial order hadPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011