Legal Opinion

Stanhope v. Los Angeles College of Chiropractic

California Court of Appeal

Decided August 24, 1942No. Civ. 13489PublishedCited by 41 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtYork, P. J.

Plaintiff instituted the instant litigation against the defendants above named to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by him as a result of the alleged malpractice of defendants in examining, treating and X-raying him after he had sustained a broken back in an accident. Defendant corporation in its answer admitted that Dr. Metzinger was its employee and denied that Dr. Joyant was its agent or employee. By way of affirmative defenses, said corporation pleaded unavoidable accident and contributory negligence.

When the cause came on for trial and before the jury…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hill v. Citizens National Trust & Savings Bank of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1937
  2. Loeb v. KimmerleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1932
  3. Weintraub v. WeingartCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
  4. Peckham v. Warner Bros. PicturesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1940
  5. Osrowitz v. Market Investment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1940

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. Seneris v. HaasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Loper v. MorrisonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
  3. Clark v. Southview Hospital & Family Health CenterOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Quintal v. Laurel Grove HospitalCalifornia Supreme Court · 1964
  5. Grewe v. Mount Clemens General HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 1978

36 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