Legal Opinion

Walter v. England

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 14, 1933No. Docket No. 4828PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BURROUGHS, J., pro tem.

This is an action for damages for malpractice. The defendant is a dentist. A jury-awarded the plaintiffs the sum of $12,000. On motion for a new trial the court made its order that said motion would be denied on condition that the plaintiffs remit $4,500 of the judgment. The plaintiffs conformed to the condition and the motion was thereupon denied.

This is an appeal by the defendant from the judgment, and also from an order of the court denying his motion for a judgment in his favor, notwithstanding the verdict.

The first assignment of error is that the verdict is not…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Barham v. WidingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Perkins v. TruebloodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Citti v. BavaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Houghton v. DicksonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916
  5. Perera v. Panama-Pacific International Exp. Co.California Supreme Court · 1918

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Gagne v. BertranCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Alcala v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Jarboe v. HartingCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1965
  4. Vonault v. O'RourkeMontana Supreme Court · 1934
  5. Sim v. WeeksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935

22 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