Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Goffe v. Pharmaseal Laboratories, Inc.

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided December 7, 1976No. 2480Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSutin, Judge

I concur in the reversal of summary judgment in favor of defendant Pharmaseal. I dissent in the affirmance of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Burress and Presbyterian Hospital.

The purpose of this dissent is not to declare defendants liable. That is not the function of this Court in an appeal from summary judgment. Our function is to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. If it does exist, the jury shall then decide by verdict whether plaintiff is entitled to recover damages. The medical malpractice explosion should not deter this Court in scrutinizing the facts and the…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Pederson v. DumouchelWashington Supreme Court · 1967
  2. Brune v. BelinkoffMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1968
  3. Bardessono v. MichelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  4. Shilkret v. Annapolis Emergency Hospital Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1975
  5. Cervantes v. ForbisNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1964

24 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