Legal Opinion

Steinfeld v. Foote-Goldman Proctologic Med. Group, Inc.

California Court of Appeal

Decided December 16, 1997No. B111025PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

BARON, J.

Following the entry of judgment in appellant Phyllis Steinfeld’s medical malpractice action against respondents Foote-Goldman Proctologic Medical Group, Inc., and Harris S. Goldman, M.D., respondents sought an order declaring that prejudgment interest awarded under Civil Code section 3291 was not an element of damages in the judgment against respondents. The superior court issued the order. We affirm.

Relevant Factual and Procedural Background

This is the third time that this case has come before us on appeal. We briefly summarize the procedural history culminating in our first…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing CommissionCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Bertero v. National General Corp.California Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Lakin v. Watkins Associated IndustriesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Greater Westchester Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
  5. Lineman v. SchmidCalifornia Supreme Court · 1948

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Hess v. Ford Motor Co.California Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Wilson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1999
  3. San Francisco Opera Ass'n v. FlickingerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
  4. One Star, Inc. v. Staar Surgical Co.California Court of Appeal · 2009
  5. Neville v. County of SonomaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012

14 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