Legal Opinion
Grieves v. Superior Court
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 14, 1984No. Civ. 34328PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
TROTTER, P. J.
The threshold issue before us is whether petitioners’ first amended complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for battery. Since the sufficiency of the complaint was tested in the trial court by means of demurrer, we accept as true all of its material factual allegations. (Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493, 496 [86 Cal.Rptr. 88, 468 P.2d 216].)
On May 1, 1981, while pregnant, petitioner Cheryl Grieves discussed with her physician, Andrew M. Kenlon, M.D. (Kenlon), the possibility of undergoing a surgical procedure known as a tubal…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Cobbs v. GrantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1970
- Taylor v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- G. D. Searle & Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1975
- Hilliard v. A. H. Robins Co.California Court of Appeal · 1983
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Voris v. LampertCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
- Ashcraft v. KingCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Venice Town Council, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Frommhagen v. Board of SupervisorsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1987
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.