Legal Opinion

Cooper ex rel. Cooper v. Lankenau Hospital

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 20, 2012PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice BAER.

Appellants seek a new trial in this medical battery/lack-of-consent ease on the ground that the trial court erroneously instructed the jury on the technical elements of battery, particularly the intent to cause a harmful or offensive contact. They further maintain that the charge was erroneous because it instructed the jury that Appellants/Plaintiffs were required to prove that the surgeon who performed the allegedly unauthorized operation did so with the intent to harm. Viewing the jury charge in its entirety, we conclude that it clearly and accurately set forth the law.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. EichingerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2007
  2. Quinby v. Plumsteadville Family Practice, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  3. Gray v. GrunnagleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  4. Gouse v. CasselSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  5. Montgomery v. Bazaz-SehgalSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. Martin-Mcfarlane v. City of Phila.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2017
  2. Polett, M., Aplt. v. Public Communications Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  3. Ickes v. GrassmeyerDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2014
  4. Nace v. Pennridge School DistrictDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2016
  5. Shinal, M. v. Toms, S.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2015

19 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