Legal Opinion

Hallinan v. Prindle

California Court of Appeal

Decided November 27, 1936No. Civ. No. 9905PublishedCited by 31 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THE COURT.

The action was brought to recover damages for an injury suffered by plaintiff as the result of the alleged negligence of the defendants in connection with an operation performed by defendant Kirk H. Prindle, a physician and surgeon, at the hospital of the corporation defendant, and for the pain, suffering, etc., occasioned thereby. The cause was tried before a jury. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s ease the defendant, Church of St. Matthew Mills Memorial Hospital, moved the court to grant a nonsuit, which was denied; and at the close of the evidence this defendant moved *659for a…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Zibbell v. Southern Pacific Co.California Supreme Court · 1911
  2. Bond v. United R.R. of S.F.California Supreme Court · 1911
  3. Hale v. San Bernardino Valley Traction Co.California Supreme Court · 1909
  4. Aderhold v. BishopSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1923
  5. Morgan v. Southern Pac. Co.California Supreme Court · 1892

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of TrusteesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1957
  2. Malloy v. FongCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Silva v. Providence Hospital of OaklandCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  4. Cavero v. Franklin General Benevolent SocietyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
  5. Licudine v. Cedars-Sinai Medical CenterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016

26 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