Legal Opinion
Schmitt v. Esser
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided June 28, 1929No. 27,286PublishedCited by 41 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.
A demurrer to the amended complaint was overruled, but the question presented was certified as important and doubtful. Defendant appeals.
The action is for malpractice. Plaintiff alleges that on March 5, 1926, she employed defendant, a duly licensed physician and surgeon, to set, adjust, care for and heal plaintiff’s right ankle, which was then broken and dislocated; that he undertook so to do, treating for the injury from March 5, 1926, to July 1, 1926, and representing that because of the peculiar injuries they would not heal completely for two years, after the treatment was finished; that…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Hahn v. ClaybrookCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1917
- Harding v. Liberty Hospital Corp.California Supreme Court · 1918
- Ogg v. RobbSupreme Court of Iowa · 1917
- Lotten v. O'BrienWisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
- Coady v. ReinsMontana Supreme Court · 1872
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- Offerdahl v. University of Minnesota Hospitals & ClinicsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1988
- William R. Jewson v. Mayo ClinicCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1982
- Couillard v. Charles T. Miller Hospital, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
- Schmit v. EsserSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1931
- Johnson v. St. Patrick's HospitalMontana Supreme Court · 1966
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.