Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Stallcup v. Coscarart, 282 P.2d 791.

53 citing documents.

Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
Seisinger v. Siebel 203 P.3d 483 Ariz. 2009
Smethers v. Campion 108 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Smethers v. Campion 108 P.3d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
See, , (stating that, in a medical malpractice case, the standard of care may be established by the defendant doctor’s own testimony); , (same); , (recognizing that a defendant physician’s own practice was at least some evidence of the standard of care, and concluding that the case was properly submitted to the jury notwithstanding the plaintiff's failure
Potter v. H. Kern Wisner, M.D., P.C. 823 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Potter v. H. Kern Wisner, M.D., P.C. 823 P.2d 1339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
(in a medical malpractice case, the community standard of care may be established by defendant doctor’s own testimony); , quoting Bickford v. Lawson, 27 Cal.App.2d 416, 421 , (expert testimony establishing plaintiff’s prima facie case in a malpractice action may be that of the defendant); Evans v. Bernhard, 23 Ariz.App.
Catchings v. City of Glendale 743 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
Catchings v. City of Glendale 743 P.2d 400 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
They insist it was error to instruct the jury with only a single general negligence instruction
Galindo v. TMT Transport, Inc. 733 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Galindo v. TMT Transport, Inc. 733 P.2d 631 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Powder Horn Nursery, Inc. v. Soil & Plant Laboratory, Inc. 579 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Powder Horn Nursery, Inc. v. Soil & Plant Laboratory, Inc. 579 P.2d 582 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 299A (1965); , , Prosser, supra, § 32; Reliable Electric Co. v. Clinton Campbell Contractor, Inc., 10 Ariz.App.
Harvey v. Kellin 566 P.2d 297 Ariz. 1977
Harvey v. Kellin 566 P.2d 297 Ariz. 1977
Evans v. Bernhard 533 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Evans v. Bernhard 533 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Stallcup *416 v. Coscarart
Goedecke v. Price 506 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Goedecke v. Price 506 P.2d 1105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1973
Faris v. Doctors Hospital, Inc. 501 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
Faris v. Doctors Hospital, Inc. 501 P.2d 440 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
81 A.L.R.2d 597 , § 2 and § 3, Necessity of Expert Evidence to Support an Action for Malpractice against a Physician or Surgeon, citing: , , and in later cases ( 81 A.L.R.2d 597 ), Kleinman v. Armour, supra, as representative of the great majority rule that *270 expert evidence is required to establish the standard of care in a malpractice case, and citing in addition Revels v
Maricopa County v. Cowart 471 P.2d 265 Ariz. 1970
Maricopa County v. Cowart 471 P.2d 265 Ariz. 1970
Stallcup v. Cos *72 carart, , Reliable Electric Co. v. Clinton Campbell Contractor, Inc., 10 Ariz.App.
Kleinman v. Armour 470 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Kleinman v. Armour 470 P.2d 703 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
s to be determinable by laymen, and as a result thereof, the direction of a verdict and granting of a judgment thereon constituted an abuse of discretion.” While as a general rule, negligence in the form of medical malpractice must be established by expert medical testimony, , , 242 P. 436 (1926); , , it is well recognized that expert testimony is not required where the resolution of the question to be determined does not require special and technical knowledge of the medical profession, and is
Kreisman v. Thomas 469 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Kreisman v. Thomas 469 P.2d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1970
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 299 A (1965); , , Prosser, supra § 32; Reliable Electric Co. v. Clinton Campbell Contractor, Inc., 10 Ariz.App.
Tessitore v. McGilvra 459 P.2d 716 Ariz. 1969
Tessitore v. McGilvra 459 P.2d 716 Ariz. 1969
Hardy v. Southern Pacific Employees Association 459 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Hardy v. Southern Pacific Employees Association 459 P.2d 743 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
Vigil v. Herman 424 P.2d 159 Ariz. 1967
Vigil v. Herman 424 P.2d 159 Ariz. 1967
“A. All these factors have to be taken into consideration.” In: addition to the above testimony, on the issue of standard of practice much of the testimony of the defendant is pertinent, , , it is not open to question that the standard in the community may be established by defendant’s testimony.
Mozes v. Daru 420 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Mozes v. Daru 420 P.2d 957 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1966
Lashinsky v. Hoffman 411 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Lashinsky v. Hoffman 411 P.2d 467 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1966
Meyer v. Ricklick 409 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1965
Meyer v. Ricklick 409 P.2d 280 Ariz. 1965
wherein it is stated: "Under well-established rules where the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment is questioned we must, in considering whether the judgment entered was proper, resolve every conflict in the evidence and every inference which can reasonably be drawn therefrom in favor o
Harris v. Campbell 409 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Harris v. Campbell 409 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1965
Boyce v. Brown, (supra); , 242 P. 436 (1926)
Sarti v. Udall 369 P.2d 92 Ariz. 1962
McNelis v. Bruce 367 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1961
McNelis v. Bruce 367 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1961
Sarwark Motor Sales, Inc. v. Woolridge 354 P.2d 34 Ariz. 1960
Sarwark Motor Sales, Inc. v. Woolridge 354 P.2d 34 Ariz. 1960
52 , , the plaintiff there submitted a proposed instruction which this Court stated was “not entirely accurate,” but because the trial court “deleted the other essential portions thereof,” the court’s instruction was held to be in error and the plaintiff was deemed not to have waived his right t
McAllister v. Industrial Commission 352 P.2d 359 Ariz. 1960
McAllister v. Industrial Commission 352 P.2d 359 Ariz. 1960
Singleton v. Valianos 323 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1958
Singleton v. Valianos 323 P.2d 697 Ariz. 1958
Goldwaters, Inc. v. Medar 313 P.2d 410 Ariz. 1957

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by