Legal Opinion

Mincey v. Blando

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided May 31, 1983No. WD32945PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WASSERSTROM, Presiding Judge.

Plaintiff Ida Mincey sues for personal injury and her husband Maurice Mincey sues for loss of consortium, arising from alleged medical malpractice by defendants Dr. Gould and Dr. Blando. A jury trial resulted in a verdict for both defendants. From judgment accordingly, plaintiffs appeal.

Contrary to the argument by defendant Gould, we hold: (1) Plaintiffs made a sub-missible case against him, and (2) the trial court erred in admitting the deposition of Gould taken on written questions. We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial as to defendant Gould. Contrary…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Dahlberg v. OgleIndiana Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Hoene v. Associated Dry Goods CorporationSupreme Court of Missouri · 1972
  3. Graddy v. New York Medical CollegeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1963
  4. Dorn v. St. Louis Public Service Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1952
  5. Rodgers v. CanfieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1935

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Breeding v. Dodson Trailer Repair, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1984
  2. Reed v. BasconIllinois Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Sall v. EllfeldtMissouri Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. Hopkins v. Mills-KluttzMissouri Court of Appeals · 2002
  5. Manno v. McIntoshCourt of Appeals of Iowa · 1994

1 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