Legal Opinion
Rosner v. Peninsula Hospital District
California Court of Appeal
Decided January 16, 1964No. Civ. 21397PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTaylor, J.
The Peninsula Hospital District and its board of directors appeal from a judgment granting a writ of mandate directing them to consider the respondent’s application for admission to the medical staff of Peninsula Hospital. The sole contention on this appeal is that the trial court erred in holding that malpractice insurance was not a proper requirement of admission under section 32128 of the Health and Safety Code.
The facts are as follows: The Peninsula Hospital is maintained by the Peninsula Hospital District, a governmental entity, functioning under The Local Hospital District Law (Health &…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Muskopf v. Corning Hospital DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Greisman v. Newcomb HospitalSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1963
- Frost v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Rosner v. Eden Township Hospital DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Wyatt v. Tahoe Forest Hospital DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Anton v. San Antonio Community HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1977
- King v. MeeseCalifornia Supreme Court · 1987
- Blank v. Palo Alto-Stanford Hospital CenterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1965
- Ascherman v. San Francisco Medical SocietyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- Holmes v. Hoemako HospitalArizona Supreme Court · 1977
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.