1956•bepress Legal RepositoryRequires access

Leonard v. Watsonville Community Hospital [DISSENT]

Jesse W. Carter

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Grant of nonsuit as to doctor was proper because the testimony of patient's adverse parties was clear and uncontradicted to effect he was not responsible for leaving clamp in patient's abdomen and there was no rational ground to disbelieve testimony.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Grant of nonsuit as to doctor was proper because the testimony of patient's adverse parties was clear and uncontradicted to effect he was not responsible for leaving clamp in patient's abdomen and there was no rational ground to disbelieve testimony.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Grant of nonsuit as to doctor was proper because the testimony of patient's adverse parties was clear and uncontradicted to effect he was not responsible for leaving clamp in patient's abdomen and there was no rational ground to disbelieve testimony.

Key concepts: Dissent, Political science, Sociology, Law, Politics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Leonard v. Watsonville Community Hospital [DISSENT] — Research Paper | ScholarLens