Legal Opinion
Cullum v. Seifer
California Court of Appeal
Decided October 20, 1969No. Civ. 33221PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
STEPHENS, J.
This action is one for alleged malpractice. The jury verdict was for the defendant. The court granted a motion for new trial. The defendant appealed.
The facts are that plaintiff, Cleo W. Cullum, first consulted defendant, Dr. Harold W. Seifer, on June 10, 1965. Plaintiff had had a considerable number of medical problems for several years, and had received medical attention from other doctors. The record shows that in addition to a hysterectomy in 1962, plaintiff had suffered from diabetes, pancreatitis, gout, gall bladder trouble, hypoglycemia, German measeis, and infected…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Mercer v. PerezCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Bauman v. City and County of San FranciscoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
- Block v. Milwaukee Street Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1895
- Love v. WolfCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
- Ballard v. Kansas CityMissouri Court of Appeals · 1905
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Scala v. Jerry Witt & Sons, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1970
- James v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1980
- Wright v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1990
- Bromme v. PavittCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
- Dumas v. CooneyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.