Legal Opinion

Fierberg v. Whitcomb

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided January 21, 1935PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAvery, J.

This is an action for malpractice against the defendant, a dentist practicing in Hartford. The complaint is in three counts: the first is based on negligence in that the defendant was alleged to have read certain X-ray plates inaccurately, whereby he extracted two teeth which were not abscessed, and failed to extract two abscessed teeth; the second is based on contract and alleges a breach of the defendant’s undertaking to extract two abscessed teeth; and the third sets up a battery, in that the defendant extracted two teeth without the plaintiff’s consent. It was alleged that, as a result of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Scovill v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1858
  2. Darrow v. FleischnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
  3. Cullum v. ColwellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1912
  4. Hart v. KnappSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1903
  5. Mead v. HustedSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1884

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Secondino v. New Haven Gas Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1960
  2. Krowka v. Colt Patent Fire Arm Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1939
  3. Delfino v. Warners Motor ExpressSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1955
  4. Trani v. Anchor Hocking Glass CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1955
  5. Gennallo v. MazzacaneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1957

10 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