Legal Opinion
Caulfield v. Stark
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided March 9, 2006No. 04-CV-548PublishedCited by 22 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
FERREN, Senior Judge:
On appeal of this medical malpractice case, the appellants, Marianne Caulfield and her husband, Robert (claiming loss of consortium), contend that the trial court erred when it granted judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) to appellees, Howard A. Stark and his medical group, on the Caul-fields’ claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, unlawful trade practice, and punitive damages. In addition, the Caulfields assert that the trial court erred in two evi-dentiary rulings: admitting Dr. Stark’s writing sample; and failing to permit Dr. Stark’s impeachment with a learned treatise…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Jonathan Woodner Co. v. BreedenDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- Washington Medical Center, Inc. v. HolleDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1990
- Virginia Academy of Clinical Psychologists v. Group Hospitalization & Medical Services, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
- Quimby v. FineCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1986
- Nelson v. HoMichigan Court of Appeals · 1997
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- Grayson v. AT & T CORP.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2011
- Fort Lincoln Civic Ass'n v. Fort Lincoln New Town Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
- Hill v. Medlantic Health Care GroupDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
- Pearson v. Soo ChungDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2008
- Oliver v. MustafaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.