Legal Opinion

Hazel v. Hewlett

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 10, 1988No. B029329PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

LILLIE, P. J.

In this dental malpractice action plaintiff, Rex Hazel, appeals from judgment entered in favor of defendant Edmond Hewlett, D.D.S., and against plaintiff after the trial court sustained defendant’s affirmative defense of the statute of limitations.

Factual and Procedural Background

In June 1983 plaintiff went to the offices of Carl Stasiewicz, D.D.S., for dental treatment. Dr. Stasiewicz determined that it was necessary to extract 13 of plaintiff’s teeth and he extracted 7 of them during plaintiff’s next two visits. On the last of these visits Dr. Stasiewicz told plaintiff…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Buckaloo v. JohnsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Gutierrez v. MofidCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Smeltzley v. Nicholson Manufacturing Co.California Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Munoz v. PurdyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Woo v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
  2. General Motors Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
  3. Davis v. MarinCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
  4. Optical Surplus, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
  5. Snoke v. BolenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991

13 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