Legal Opinion

Dimock v. Miller

California Supreme Court

Decided December 17, 1927No. Docket No. L.A. 8422PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLangdon, J.

Plaintiffs sued as husband and wife to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the negligent treatment of the wife by the defendant, who was a practicing dentist. The cause was tried before a jury, which rendered a general verdict in the sum of six thousand dollars, and from the judgment following the verdict the defendant has appealed.

The charge of negligence is based upon the claim that in giving to his patient a hypodermic injection following the extraction of two of her teeth the defendant failed to sterilize the hypodermic needle and used impure water in the morphine solution.

The…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Scally v. W. T. Garratt & Co.California Court of Appeal · 1909
  2. Saylor v. TaylorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1919

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Ales v. RyanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  2. Barham v. WidingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Lanier v. TrammellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
  4. Atkins v. HumesSupreme Court of Florida · 1959
  5. Morrison v. ActonArizona Supreme Court · 1948

24 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