Duran v. St. Luke's Hospital
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KAY, P. J.
Benjamin Franklin described the snowballing consequences of inattention to a small detail—“For want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for want of a horse the rider was lost.” (Oxford Dict. of Quotations (2d ed. 1955) p. 211.) In this case the missing nail is a check that was $3 short of the amount required to file a complaint for medical malpractice that allegedly caused the death of the plaintiffs’ infant child. The harsh but unavoidable result is that we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint because it was not filed…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Rappleyea v. CampbellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Tregambo v. Comanche Mill & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1881
- Joseph Raymond Cintron v. Union Pacific Railroad CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1987
- United Farm Workers of America v. Agricultural Labor Relations BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Boyd v. BurrelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1882
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Lauren Casola v. Dexcom, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2024
- Apollo v. GyaamiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- Liang v. San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilization & Arbitration BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Martinez v. Airbnb, IncDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2023
- Westlands Water Dist. v. Cal. Water Impact Network CA5California Court of Appeal · 2021
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.