Legal Opinion

Suskey v. Davidoff

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided January 7, 1958PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWingert, J.

The sole question for decision is whether the action is barred by statute of limitations. For present purposes it may be assumed that, as asserted by the plaintiff, the defendants wrongfully removed her gall bladder without her consent and without justification of any necessity or emergency, and that they gave her no advance intimation that they might do so.

1. On that assumption as to the facts (which are vigorously disputed by the defendants), defendants were guilty of an assault. A surgical operation performed without the consent of the patient and without justification by reason of…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Laughnan v. GriffithsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
  2. Klingbeil v. SaucermanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1917
  3. Anderson v. Tri-State Home Improvement Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1955
  4. Paulsen v. GundersenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Rusch v. WaldWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930

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

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Trogun v. FruchtmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
  3. McCluskey v. ThranowWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966
  4. Milwaukee County v. Schmidt, Garden & EriksonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Reistad v. ManzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1960

11 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