Legal Opinion

Hutter v. Hommel

California Supreme Court

Decided September 25, 1931No. Docket No. L.A. 11269PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPreston, J.

The judgment is affirmed.

Action to recover damages for alleged malpractice on the part of defendant in so carelessly and negligently rendering surgical and medical treatment to plaintiff Louise Hutter as to cause her pain, impairment of facial appearance and impairment of vision of the left eye. Said allegations of negligence were denied by defendant and he affirmatively pleaded contributory negligence on the part of said plaintiff. The case went to trial and upon conflicting evidence the jury returned a verdict awarding said plaintiff damages in the sum of $10,000 and plaintiff, Prank D.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Treadwell v. NickelCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
  2. Darling v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.California Supreme Court · 1925
  3. People v. HillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1897

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Seneris v. HaasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Mann v. CracchioloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Gaston v. HunterCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1978
  4. Brown v. ColmCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
  5. Pfingsten v. WestenhaverCalifornia Supreme Court · 1952

23 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