Legal Opinion

Mitchell v. Poole

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided March 6, 1934PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBecker, J.

Plaintiff, in her action for malpractice, seeks to recover damages against defendant for injuries alleged to have been sustained as a result of a hypodermic needle breaking off and lodging in her gums during a tooth extraction. At the trial there was a verdict and judgment for the defendant, but subsequently the trial court sustained plaintiff’s motion for a new trial and the defendant in due course appeals.

The petition in substance charges the defendant with the following acts of negligence: First, that the defendant negligently and carelessly used a hypodermic needle that was old, worn,…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Cazzell v. SchofieldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1928
  2. Cole v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1933
  3. Krinard v. WestermanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1919
  4. State ex rel. Hartman v. ThomasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1912
  5. Tallman v. NelsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1910

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Steele v. WoodsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1959
  2. Pedigo v. RoseberrySupreme Court of Missouri · 1937
  3. Williams v. ChamberlainSupreme Court of Missouri · 1958
  4. Ellegood v. Brashear Freight Lines, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1942
  5. Gladys Child Soars v. Soars-Lovelace, Inc.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1940

6 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