Legal Opinion

Fritz v. Horsfall

Washington Supreme Court

Decided November 1, 1945No. 29608PublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

1 Reported in 163 P.2d 148. This action was brought to recover damages for malpractice. The case tried to a court and jury resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant.

The plaintiff presented a motion for a new trial upon several grounds. The motion was granted by a general order, without the giving of any reasons therefor. Defendant has appealed from the order to which we have just referred and assigns as error the granting of plaintiff's motion for a new trial. [1] The rule in those cases in which the order granting a new trial is general and does not specify the grounds upon which it…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Ewing v. GoodeU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1897
  2. Wharton v. WarnerWashington Supreme Court · 1913
  3. Helland v. BridenstineWashington Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Swanson v. HoodWashington Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Wells v. Ferry-Baker Lumber Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1910

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

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Miller v. KennedyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1974
  2. Walker v. DistlerIdaho Supreme Court · 1956
  3. Cochran v. Harrison Memorial HospitalWashington Supreme Court · 1953
  4. Kelly v. CarrollWashington Supreme Court · 1950
  5. Yeager v. DunnavanWashington Supreme Court · 1946

34 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