Legal Opinion

Cox v. Paul

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided April 7, 2004No. 71A03-0303-CV-92PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

MATHIAS, Judge.

Suzan and Stephen Cox ("the Coxes") filed a complaint against Dr. William Paul ("Dr. Paul") in St. Joseph Circuit Court alleging that Dr. Paul breached his duty to warn Suzan that her dental implants were potentially defective and subject to recall. The Coxes filed a motion for partial summary judgment arguing that Dr. Paul breached his duty to warn as a matter of law. The trial court denied the motion. The Coxes have filed this interlocutory appeal and argue that the trial court erred when it denied their motion because the undisputed material facts establish that they…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. American Management, Inc. v. MIF Realty, L.P.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1996
  2. Tom-Wat, Inc. v. FinkIndiana Supreme Court · 2001
  3. Yin v. Society National Bank IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 1996
  4. Harco, Inc. of Indianapolis v. Plainfield Interstate Family Dining AssociatesIndiana Court of Appeals · 2001
  5. Harris v. RaymondIndiana Supreme Court · 1999

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Cox v. PaulIndiana Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Cox v. PaulIndiana Court of Appeals · 2004
  3. Cox v. PaulIndiana Supreme Court · 2005

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

Powered by the Exa API