Legal Opinion

Holton v. Burton

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided December 4, 1928PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEschweiler, J.

The extremely unfortunate and unusual result and permanent impairment to plaintiff’s arm following its dislocation January 1, 1924, before it can be made a legal liability against defendant, required a showing by plaintiff that the defendant failed in the discharge of the duty he owed to plaintiff in assuming as a surgeon to treat and care for plaintiff. Under the facts in this case the situation presented was pre-eminently one calling for expert testimony by witnesses qualified by knowledge and experience and able to determine and point out wherein such an unusual and unfortunate condition…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Zoterell v. ReppMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
  2. Matuschka v. MurphyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
  3. Wurdemann v. BarnesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
  4. Kuehnemann v. BoydWisconsin Supreme Court · 1927
  5. Nelson v. SandellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1926

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Nowatske v. OsterlohWisconsin Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Jones v. ChidesterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. McDonnell v. MonteithNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1930
  4. McGuire v. RixNebraska Supreme Court · 1929
  5. Alberti v. GordonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1937

4 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