Legal Opinion · Dissent

Shabinaw v. Brown

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided September 2, 1998No. 24106Published

1DissentSilak, Justice

I respectfully dissent from Parts III, IV and V of the majority opinion. In my view, the Court should affirm the district court’s order granting a new trial.

With respect to the nondisclosure element (Part III A) of proving a claim based on the doctrine of informed consent pursuant to Sherwood v. Carter, 119 Idaho 246, 805 P.2d 452 (1991), the majority reverses the district court’s order granting a new trial as to the first surgery based upon the expert testimony presented by Dr. Brown, the defendant physician, which stated that nasogastric therapy was not a viable alternative to the first…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Cobbs v. GrantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Suitts v. First Security Bank of Idaho, N.A.Idaho Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Sherwood v. CarterIdaho Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Rook v. TroutIdaho Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Shabinaw v. BrownIdaho Supreme Court · 1994

1 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