Legal Opinion

Bowman v. Davis

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided November 3, 1976No. 75-898PublishedCited by 71 opinions

1Per curiam

Appellant presents two claims in this cause. One is that “public policy of the state of Ohio” bars “recovery of damages for the ‘wrongful life’ of a child *44following an unsuccessful sterilization procedure.” The other is that such damages are barred when “the patient knowingly and voluntarily signs a sterilization consent form relieving the physician and hospital from responsibility for any unfavorable results.”1

' The Court of Appeals held that the “patient sterilization consent form” signed by the Bowmans prior to Mrs. Bowman’s surgery “does not operate as a release of liability and does not…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  3. Doe v. BoltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. Custodio v. BauerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  5. Gleitman v. CosgroveSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1967

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

3Cited by71 opinions

  1. Jackson v. BumgardnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  2. Sherlock v. Stillwater ClinicSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  3. Smith v. GoreTennessee Supreme Court · 1987
  4. Blake v. CruzIdaho Supreme Court · 1985
  5. James G. v. CasertaWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1985

66 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