Legal Opinion

Petrucci v. Heidenreich

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 19, 1941No. Civ. 12879PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcCOMB, J.

From a judgment, in favor of defendant after trial before the court without a jury, predicated upon the sustaining of an objection by defendant to the introduction of any evidence on the ground that the complaint showed on its face that plaintiffs’ cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations (subd. 3, sec. 340, Code Civ. Proe.), in an action to recover damages for malpractice, plaintiffs appeal.

It is alleged in the complaint filed October 20, 1939, that on or about July 25, 1937, defendant, a physician and surgeon, performed a cervical cauterization of plaintiff Flora Petrucci’s…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Huysman v. KirschCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Trombley v. KoltsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
  3. Wetzel v. PiusCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1926

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Stafford v. ShultzCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Weinstock v. EisslerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1964
  3. Virginia Modave v. Long Island Jewish Medical Center and the County of Nassau (Meadowbrook Hospital)Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1974
  4. Myers v. StevensonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
  5. Wilder v. HaworthOregon Supreme Court · 1950

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API