Legal Opinion

Milburn v. Foster

California Court of Appeal

Decided July 23, 1935No. Civ. 9376PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ROTH, J., pro tem.

In this action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by respondent as result of being struck by an automobile operated by defendant Lucille Foster with permission of the owner, appellant J. Arthur Foster, upon request of appellant, a doctor was appointed for the purpose of giving medical testimony. After some preliminary questions, the court said to the doctor: “Now, will you state to the jury what your examination consisted of and what you found as a result of your examination?” In the course of his testimony, the doctor referred to some matters clearly. hearsay…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Perry v. McLaughlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Snodgrass v. HandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
  3. Broome v. Kern Valley Packing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1935
  4. Bradford v. BrockCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  5. Pascoe v. PayneCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1932

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Martinez v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Weddle v. LogesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  3. Harbor Insurance v. PaulsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955
  4. Phipps v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
  5. Rogers v. FoppianoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1937

10 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