Legal Opinion
Snoke v. Bolen
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 14, 1991No. A051904PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
HANING, J.
—Plaintiff/appellant Frances Snoke appeals a summary judgment in favor of defendant/respondent William B. Bolen, D.D.S., in her dental malpractice action. She challenges the trial court’s ruling that her action was barred by the statute of limitations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 340.5.)
Facts
In November 1986 respondent Bolen, appellant’s dentist, referred her to Dr. Paul McKee, an oral surgeon, for extraction of tooth number 5. McKee performed the extraction on January 6,1987. On January 16,1987, appellant returned to respondent for preparation of a dental bridge between teeth…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Munoz v. PurdyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1979
- Marasco v. WadsworthCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Vanderbilt Growth Fund, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
- Dover v. SadowinskiCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Frank and Freedus v. Allstate Ins. Co.California Court of Appeal · 1996
- General Motors Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- Balon v. DrostCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Balon v. DrostCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
- Balon v. DrostCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1993
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.