Legal Opinion

Mastro v. Kennedy

California Court of Appeal

Decided March 3, 1943No. Civ. 3018PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarks, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment for defendants in a malpractice case, entered after a motion for nonsuit had been granted.

Defendants are duly licensed dentists who were practicing in the city of Fresno. Dr. Marquess was employed by Dr. Kennedy who was absent from his office on the occasions involved here. The services rendered plaintiff were performed by Dr. Marquess within the scope of his employment by Dr. Kennedy. We will hereafter refer to Dr. Marquess as the defendant.

It is well settled that where a motion for nonsuit is made, all evidence favorable to plaintiff’s case must be accepted…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Engstrom v. Auburn Automobile Sales Corp.California Supreme Court · 1938
  2. Ales v. RyanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
  3. Barham v. WidingCalifornia Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Engelking v. CarlsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  5. Hesler v. California Hospital Co.California Supreme Court · 1918

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Morrison v. ActonArizona Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Moore v. BeltCalifornia Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Singleton v. SingletonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1945
  4. Adams v. HermanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1951
  5. Bessinger v. De LoachSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1956

13 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