Lilley v. Parkinson
California Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior, Court of Contra Costa County, and from an order denying a new trial. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtDe Haven, J.
The defendant» is a physician and surgeon, and this action is to recover damages for his alleged negligence and unslcillfulness in setting a broken arm of the plaintiff Sarah E. Lilley. The plaintiffs recovered a judgment for one thousand dollars. The defendant appeals.
Upon the trial, the plaintiffs were permitted, in the examination in chief of medical witnesses called by themselves, to read extracts from Agnew’s Surgery, shown to be a standard work and authority on that subject, and then to ask the witnesses if what was so read corresponded with their own judgment. The decision of the court…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SturtivantMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- City of Bloomington v. ShrockIllinois Supreme Court · 1884
- Marshall v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
- Gallagher v. Market Street Railway Co. of San FranciscoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1885
- Fisher v. Southern Pacific RailroadCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by8 opinions
- Gluckstein v. LipsettCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1949
- Kern v. PullenOregon Supreme Court · 1931
- Scott v. Astoria RailroadOregon Supreme Court · 1903
- Baldwin v. GainesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1917
- Baily v. KreutzmannCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.