Legal Opinion

Langford v. Kosterlitz

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 10, 1930No. Docket No. 7134PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DEASY, J., pro tem.

Respondent, for some time prior to the seventh day of December, 1926, had suffered from asthma. He had been treated from time to time by many doctors, but had obtained only temporary relief. Some few months prior to said date an operation had been performed on respondent’s nose by a Doctor Martin, in which part of the middle turbinate bone and also some infected ethmoid cells had been removed. On said date, respondent called on appellant, and after stating his condition and the facts about the operation as he knew them, was examined by appellant and employed appellant as a…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Scott v. Times-Mirror Co.California Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Pierce v. United Gas and Electric Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
  3. People v. FlemingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Perkins v. TruebloodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  5. People v. SteelikCalifornia Supreme Court · 1921

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Curcic v. Nelson Display Co.California Court of Appeal · 1937
  2. Northwest States Utilities Co. v. BrouiletteWyoming Supreme Court · 1937
  3. Reid v. OwensUtah Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Hutchinson v. KnowlesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1936
  5. Conner v. East Bay Municipal Utility DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935

7 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