Hiraide v. Cochran
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
WARMER, J., pro tem.
This is an appeal from an order granting a new trial in a malpractice action, the complaint charging negligence, lack of care and lack of skill of the defendant in the performance of his professional duties in caring for Cho Hiráide. The answer denies the negligence, lack of care and lack of skill. The motion for a new trial was made on a number of grounds, among which was insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict and that the verdict is against the law. The motion was granted upon the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify the verdict. The sole…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Perkins v. TruebloodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Houghton v. DicksonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
- Smith v. RoyerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Gordon v. RobertsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Dickey v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Mosekian v. GinsbergCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932
- Bickford v. LawsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
- Rasmussen v. ShickleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- McGuire v. BairdCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
- Jensen v. FindleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1936
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.