Legal Opinion

Runyan v. Semmens

California Court of Appeal

Decided January 18, 1963No. Civ. 160PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.

Defendant doctor appeals from an order granting motion for a new trial after defense verdict in a malpractice action.

Plaintiffs are husband and wife and their interests are identical insofar as this appeal is concerned. For convenience, Aliene Runyan, who was defendant’s patient, is hereafter referred to as “plaintiff.”

Defendant performed a partial hysterectomy upon plaintiff for removal of the cervical stump left from an operation performed several years earlier. Defendant testified that during the course of the operation plaintiff’s bladder was “inadvertently” lacerated. This %-inch hole…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Union Sugar Co. v. Hollister Estate Co.California Supreme Court · 1935
  2. Brooks v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Richardson v. HamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Yarrow v. State of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Oldis v. La Societe Francaise De Bienfaisance MutuelleCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1955

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Kramer v. BoyntonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1968
  2. Roseboro v. Rawlings Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1969
  3. People v. LyonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
  4. State Industries, Inc. v. Capitol Metals Co.California Court of Appeal · 1964

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

Powered by the Exa API