Legal Opinion

Acker v. Sorensen

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided February 7, 1969No. 37053PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcCown, J.

This is an action for malpractice. The defendant’s motion for summary judgment was sustained by the trial court on the ground that plaintiff’s cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations.

The pleadings, deposition, and affidavit of the plaintiff, Edna Acker, assert that she first had a skin disorder in 1956. There was a small lump on the side of her nose and one on her cheek. She consulted Dr. Blackstone of Bridgeport, Nebraska, who burned them off with acid. On' August 30, 1957, after a recurrence of the small lump on her nose, the size, of a kernel of rice, she consulted Dr.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Urie v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Spath v. MorrowNebraska Supreme Court · 1962
  3. United States v. Wilroy ReidCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1958
  4. Williams v. EliasNebraska Supreme Court · 1941
  5. Stacey v. PantanoNebraska Supreme Court · 1964

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Lipsey v. Michael Reese HospitalIllinois Supreme Court · 1970
  2. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. Touche Ross & Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Sacchi v. BlodigNebraska Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Harrison v. SeltzerWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Tamara Hatfield, by Her Father and Next Friend, Samuel Hatfield v. Bishop Clarkson Memorial Hospital, a Nebraska Corporation, John Harold GeorgeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1982

14 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