Legal Opinion
Ardoline v. Keegan
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided January 5, 1954PublishedCited by 97 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtInglis, C. J.
This is an action for malpractice. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant on the grounds (1) that there had been no evidence that the defendant’s treatment of the plaintiff’s decedent was not in accordance with the requisite standard of care, and (2) that there had been no evidence of a causal relationship between the defendant’s treatment and the death of the plaintiff’s decedent. After verdict the court reversed its position and granted a motion to set the verdict aside. Prom this action the defendant has appealed.
The defendant offered no evidence, but from that submitted by…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Roma v. Thames River Specialties Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1915
- Slimak v. FosterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1927
- Lewis v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
- Robinson v. BackesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1917
- Dudas v. Ward Baking Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by97 opinions
- Yanow v. Teal Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- Larsen Chelsey Realty Co. v. LarsenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
- Sestito v. City of GrotonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1979
- Pisel v. Stamford HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Doe v. ManheimerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1989
92 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.