Legal Opinion

Doe v. Raezer

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided July 18, 1995PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CERCONE, Judge:

This case presents an appeal and cross-appeal from the order of the trial court which granted defendants’ motion for remittitur or, in the alternative, a new trial. We reverse.

The facts, in short, are as follows: John Doe, a diabetic, experienced difficulty in completely emptying his bladder. In July 1987, Mr. Doe consulted David M. Raezer, M.D., a urologist and shareholder in the professional corporation Usurg Associates, Inc. Dr. Raezer diagnosed Mr. Doe as suffering from severe phimosis, involving a contraction of the foreskin of the penis, and balanitis, an inflammation of…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Baldino v. CastagnaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Gemini Equipment Co. v. Pennsy Supply, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. Tonik v. Apex Garages, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  4. Giovanetti v. Johns-Manville Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  5. Botek v. Mine Safety Appliance Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Gunn v. GrossmanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  2. Neal v. Bavarian Motors, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  3. Zauflik, A., Aplt. v. Pennsbury School DistrictSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  4. Potochnick v. PerrySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  5. Bindschusz v. PhillipsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001

21 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