Legal Opinion

Soest v. Balsinger

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 13, 1943No. Civ. 13978PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtYork, P. J.

Respondent Soest brought the instant action in malpractice to recover damages from appellant, a physician and surgeon, for alleged disfigurement and permanent deformity resulting from operations performed by him on respondent’s nose.

This appeal is prosecuted from the judgment for $5,000 which was entered pursuant to the verdict of the jury, as well as from an order denying appellant’s motion for a new trial.

The record herein discloses that respondent had for some time suffered from severe headaches and had difficulty in breathing, and that two doctors had advised her that she needed a…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Engelking v. CarlsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939
  2. Mirich v. BalsingerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1942
  3. Dimock v. MillerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Mastro v. KennedyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1943
  5. McNamara v. EmmonsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Ramos Orengo v. Gobierno de la Capital de Puerto RicoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1963
  2. Carrasco v. BankoffCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
  3. Nevada Tax Commission v. Harker & Harker, Inc.Nevada Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Ramos Orengo v. Government of the Capital of Puerto RicoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1963
  5. Sáez v. Municipality of Ponce ex rel. CintrónSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1962

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API