Legal Opinion
Nixdorf v. Hicken
Utah Supreme Court
Decided May 27, 1980No. 16151PublishedCited by 83 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MAUGHAN, Justice:
The plaintiff appeals the district court’s granting of a directed verdict in favor of the defendants. Following the preservation of the plaintiff’s case the defendants moved pursuant to Rule 50 for a directed verdict. The court granted the motion and entered its judgment thereon. We reverse and remand the action for a new trial. All statutory references are to Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended.
For a period of approximately ten years, the plaintiff, Elsa H. Nixdorf, suffered from a cystocele and rectocele.1 In June 1964 she contacted the defendant, Dr. N. Frederick Hicken,…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Schloendorff v. Society of the New York HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1914
- Jerry W. Canterbury v. William Thornton Spence and the Washington Hospital Center, a Body CorporateCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1972
- Wilkinson v. VeseySupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1972
- Natanson v. KlineSupreme Court of Kansas · 1960
- Miller v. KennedyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1974
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by83 opinions
- Shadrick v. CokerTennessee Supreme Court · 1998
- Harnish v. Children's Hospital Medical CenterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1982
- Austin v. LitvakSupreme Court of Colorado · 1984
- Rolon-Alvarado v. Municipality of San JuanCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
- Daniels v. Gamma West Brachytherapy, LLCUtah Supreme Court · 2009
78 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.