Legal Opinion
Higdon v. Carlebach
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided May 17, 1957No. Docket 73, 74, Calendar 47,074, 47,075PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBlack, J.
These are consolidated actions for negligence occurring, as alleged, in the course of dental treatment. One is brought by plaintiff Sandra R. Higdon in her own right. The other, derivative from the first, is brought by Sandra’s mother.
Sandra’s cause is a striking duplicate of Vale v. Noe, 172 Wis 421 (179 NW 572); and Ellering v. Gross, 189 Minn 68 (248 NW 330). Vale denies recovery. The reasoning thereof shores defense argument that these actions cannot be maintained absent expert testimony tending, aside from the facts as shown, to establish Sandra’s cause. Ellering sustains recovery in…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Kaminski v. Grand Trunk Western RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1956
- Whetstine v. MoravecSupreme Court of Iowa · 1940
- Evans v. RobertsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1915
- Vonault v. O'RourkeMontana Supreme Court · 1934
- Zoterell v. ReppMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Mitcham v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1959
- Lince v. MonsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1961
- Jones v. PorrettaMichigan Supreme Court · 1987
- Locke v. PachtmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
- Fehrman v. SmirlWisconsin Supreme Court · 1963
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.