Legal Opinion

Whipple v. Grandchamp

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 13, 1927PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPierce, J.

The plaintiff’s amended declaration is in substance as follows: “. . . the defendant held himself out as competent to treat and cure her as a physician of the malady from which she was then suffering; that the defendant did undertake to treat and cure her said malady; and the plaintiff says that the defendant treated her in an unskillful, careless and negligent manner, whereby the plaintiff was seriously and permanently injured and was caused pain and suffering and anguish of body and mind, to the great damage of the plaintiff.” The answer is a general denial. The jury returned a verdict for…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Parker v. BarnardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
  2. Commonwealth v. ZimmermanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
  3. Gately v. TaylorMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
  4. Chesley v. DurantMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
  5. Carey v. MercerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Kapp v. BallantineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
  2. District of Columbia v. WilsonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1998
  3. Call v. City of BurleyIdaho Supreme Court · 1936
  4. Kronzer v. First Nat. Bank of MinneapolisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  5. Sawyer & Co. v. Southern Pacific Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1968

17 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