Legal Opinion
Quimby v. Fine
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided August 20, 1986No. 14143-1-IPublishedCited by 55 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Revelle, J. *
—Dr. Charles Fine appeals from the trial court's denial of his summary judgment motion. He maintains that the plaintiffs Melvin H. Quimby's and Rose M. Quimby's wrongful birth action did not fall under the Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86, and was effectively barred by the statute of limitation, RCW 4.16.350. The Supreme Court denied a motion to transfer December 6, 1984. We affirm.
On December 28, 1979, Dr. Fine removed a vaginal cyst and performed tubal ligation sterilization procedure on Mrs. Quimby. She maintains that he substituted a Hulka Clip tubal ligation procedure in…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hangman Ridge Training Stables, Inc. v. Safeco Title InsuranceWashington Supreme Court · 1986
- Arizona v. Maricopa County Medical SocietySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Harbeson v. Parke-Davis, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1983
- Short v. DemopolisWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- Miller v. KennedyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1974
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by55 opinions
- Haynes v. Yale-New Haven HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- Eriks v. DenverWashington Supreme Court · 1992
- Sherwood v. Danbury HospitalSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
- Howell v. Spokane & Inland Empire Blood BankWashington Supreme Court · 1990
- Darviris v. PetrosMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.