Legal Opinion

Lentz v. Thompson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 20, 1967No. 624PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHiggiNS, J.

In passing on the sufficiency of the evidence to go to the jury, we must assume that Dr. Thompson severed the plaintiff’s spinal accessory nerve during the operation for the removal of the malignant glands. The evidence permits that finding. Some thing more is necessary,, however, to establish the defendant’s civil liability. All the experts who testified in the case for both parties emphasized the necessity of protecting the covering or shell over the diseased nodes during the removal in order to prevent the spread of infection which a break or leak in the covering would permit. In the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Nash v. . RoysterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  2. Hunt v. BradshawSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  3. Watson v. CluttsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  4. Galloway Ex Rel. Parks v. LawrenceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  5. Buckner Ex Rel. Buckner v. WheeldonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Jackson v. BumgardnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  2. Starnes v. TaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  3. Thompson v. LockertCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
  4. Ballance v. WentzSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  5. Jackson v. BumgardnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API