Legal Opinion

Markart v. Zeimer

California Court of Appeal

Decided May 19, 1924No. Civ. No. 2679PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SHIELDS, J., pro tem.

This is an action for malpractice growing out of the employment of defendants by the plaintiff to perform a surgical operation on him for the cure or removal of a hernia in the region of the right groin.

The complaint was in two counts. The first count charges negligence in these particulars, “that the said defendants then and there so negligently, carelessly and unskillfully performed said operation in and upon plaintiff in this, that after they had made an incision, cut into and opened the body of plaintiff that they closed the inguinal canal through which the cord…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Ewing v. GoodeU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Ohio · 1897
  2. Staloch v. HolmSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1907
  3. Perkins v. TruebloodCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Benson v. . DeanNew York Court of Appeals · 1921
  5. Evans v. RobertsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1915

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

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Cobbs v. GrantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Huffman v. LindquistCalifornia Supreme Court · 1951
  3. Lashley v. KoerberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Hundley v. St. Francis HospitalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  5. Wright v. ConwayWyoming Supreme Court · 1925

30 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