Opinion

Pearce v. Linde

  • 113 Cal. App. 2d 627
  • 248 P.2d 506
  • 1952 Cal. App. LEXIS 1418
Court
California Court of Appeal
Filed
Oct 10, 1952
Status
Published
Author
Dooling
On the bench
Nourse, Dooling
Cited by
15 cases
Authority
More cited than 11.3%

specialist in internal medicine not qualified as to orthopedics

How later courts described this case

  • specialist in internal medicine not qualified as to orthopedics

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

DOOLING, J.

I concur. If I felt free to do so I would be inclined to hold the expert from Reno sufficiently qualified, but the trend of recent decisions culminating with Huffman v. Lindquist, 37 Cal.2d 465 [ 234 P.2d 34 ], indicates too clearly ■ an opposite view in a majority of the justices of the Supreme Court for me to feel free to do other than concur.

A petition for a rehearing was denied November 8, 1952, and appellant’s petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied December 8, 1952. Carter, J., and Schauer, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.