Legal Opinion
Gimenez v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided October 15, 1932PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Order affirmed, without costs. The art has developed to such an extent that the use of X-ray photography has become a common and generally accepted procedure in medical and surgical diagnosis. This court, therefore, recedes from the determination made by it in Lacqua v. General Linen Supply & Laundry Co., Inc. (227 App. Div. 794), decided on the authority of Van Orden v. Madow (207 id. 827), and will follow the rule adopted in the other Departments. (Hayt v. Brewster, Gordon & Co., Inc., 199 App. Div. 68, Fourth Dept.; Hollister v. Robertson, 208 id. 449, Third Dept.; McInnes v. Cannon, 225…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hayt v. Brewster, Gordon & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
- Lacqua v. General Linen Supply & Laundry Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1929
3Cited by5 opinions
- Reiss v. Kirkman & Son, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1934
- Castrillon v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Dixie Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. MatthewsMississippi Supreme Court · 1936
- Mitchell v. Pure Oil Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1937
- Feinberg v. Fairmont Holding Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1947