Rising v. Veatch
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
DOOLING, J., pro tem.
In this action for malpractice respondents recovered judgment against appellant, a dentist. The case was tried before a jury. In the course of the examination of respondent, Ethel Rising, she was asked by her counsel to relate a certain conversation with appellant. Over repeated objections of appellant’s counsel the following testimony was given: “In regard to reimbursing us for the doctor bills—■ . . . Reimburse us for the expenses of the doctors; that it was out of his hands, and would have to be handled through his insurance.”
Counsel for appellant immediately assigned…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Barham v. WidingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
- Brewer v. RingSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
- Lahti v. McMenaminCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Patterson v. MarcusCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Schumacher v. Murray HospitalMontana Supreme Court · 1920
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by26 opinions
- Royal Globe Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Huffman v. LindquistCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
- Boyce v. BrownArizona Supreme Court · 1938
- Stacy v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1934
- Theobald v. ByersCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1961
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.