Legal Opinion

McMillen v. Foncannon

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided February 9, 1929No. 28,498PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Harvey, J.:

This is an action for damages for malpractice. A demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence was sustained. He filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and judgment was rendered for defendant. Plaintiff has appealed.

Plaintiff’s evidence is, in substance, as follows: About six o’clock on the evening of February 2, 1925, plaintiff, a workman, sustained an injury in which his right arm was broken below the elbow. Defendant, a physician and surgeon, was called to treat the injury. He took plaintiff to his office, made X-ray pictures of the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Wharton v. WarnerWashington Supreme Court · 1913
  2. James v. GrigsbySupreme Court of Kansas · 1923
  3. Pettigrew v. Lewis & WillardSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
  4. Shockley v. TuckerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
  5. Hershey v. PeakeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1924

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Voss Ex Rel. Voss v. BridwellSupreme Court of Kansas · 1961
  2. Collins v. MeekerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1967
  3. Goheen v. GraberSupreme Court of Kansas · 1957
  4. Bernsden v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1953
  5. Riggs v. GouldnerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1939

6 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