Legal Opinion

Lindloff v. Ross

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided June 20, 1932PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNelson, J.

It is well established that it is the duty of a dentist to exercise that degree of care, diligence, judgment, or skill which dentists in good standing usually exercise in the same or similar localities under like or similar circumstances, having regard to the advanced state of dental science at the time of discharging his legal duty to his patient. Eggert v. Dramburg, 197 Wis. 153, 221 N. W. 732; Krueger v. Chase, 172 Wis. 163, 177 N. W. 510; Nelson v. Harrington, 72 Wis. 591, 40 N. W. 228; Wurdemann v. Barnes, 92 Wis. 206, 66 N. W. 111; Marchand v. Bellin, 158 Wis. 184, 147 N. W. 1033.

In…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Nelson v. HarringtonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Matuschka v. MurphyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Wurdemann v. BarnesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Kuehnemann v. BoydWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Francis v. BrooksOhio Court of Appeals · 1926

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Kerkman v. HintzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Ambrosi v. MonksDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1951

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API