Legal Opinion

Doe v. University of Cincinnati

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided December 22, 1988No. 88AP-553PublishedCited by 40 opinions

1Per curiam

Defendants appeal from a discovery ruling granted on plaintiffs’ motion by the Court of Claims. The discovery order from which defendants appeal requires the disclosure of the name, address and telephone number of the person who donated blood allegedly infected with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (“AIDS”) which was subsequently transfused into plaintiff Jane Doe.

In July 1984, plaintiff Jane Doe was admitted to defendant University of Cincinnati Hospital for surgery to remove a malignant brain tumor. On July 30, 1984, the scheduled surgery took place during which plaintiff required the…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Whalen v. RoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. United States v. Procter & Gamble Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1958
  4. Gutierrez v. LynchCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1987
  5. Weis v. WeisOhio Supreme Court · 1947

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

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. John Doe v. Puget Sound Blood CenterWashington Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Laburre v. East Jefferson General Hosp.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1990
  3. Arnold v. American National Red CrossOhio Court of Appeals · 1994
  4. Doe v. American Red Cross Blood Services, S.C. RegionDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1989
  5. Vinci v. CeraoloOhio Court of Appeals · 1992

35 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