Bikowicz v. Nedco Pharmacy, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the doctor’s treatment' of the plaintiff terminated either when the direct consultations ended, or when the doctor last consulted the pharmacist about the refills regarding dosage
• concluding that the doctor's treatment of the plaintiff terminated either when the direct consultations ended, or when the doctor last consulted the pharmacist about the refills regarding dosage

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Rowntree v. Hunsucker
  Texas Supreme Court· 1992-05-27· cited 115×
• Bikowicz v. Nedco Pharmacy, Inc.
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1987-07-16· cited 12×
• Ciardelli v. Rindal
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1998-08-20· cited 10×
• Parrott v. Rand
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1987-01-20· cited 9×
• Carter v. State
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 2001-06-28· cited 7×
• Cooper v. Kaplan
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1990-07-17· cited 4×
• Hoch v. Paloger
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1989-05-15· cited 3×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• McDermott v. Torre
  New York Court of Appeals· 1982-06-15· cited 369×
• Borgia v. City of New York
  New York Court of Appeals· 1962-12-31· cited 331×
• Renda v. Frazer
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1980-07-10· cited 33×
• Bernardo v. Ayerest Laboratories, Division of American Home Products
  Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1984-01-10· cited 10×