Armstrong v. Svoboda
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
CONLEY, J. *
The plaintiff sued the defendant doctor for malpractice, claiming permanent injuries by reason of negligence in the treatment of his heart condition. The jury’s verdict was for the defendant. But plaintiff’s motion for a new trial was granted on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict and the defendant appealed.
Under our system, the final check on a jury’s findings of fact, when there is a substantial conflict of evidence, is committed to the trial judge. In a homely phrase, which is accurate in connotation, it is often said that it is his duty on…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Green v. SouleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Hawk v. City of Newport BeachCalifornia Supreme Court · 1956
- Grover v. Sharp & Fellows Contracting Co.California Court of Appeal · 1944
- Sheffield v. RunnerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Pemberton v. BarberCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1962
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- James v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1980
- Bromme v. PavittCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Cullum v. SeiferCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1969
- McNair v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. CA2/3California Court of Appeal · 2021