Supreme Court of Delaware· 12/20/1991

Burkhart v. Davies

Citations

602 A.2d 56
1991 Del. LEXIS 432

How courts have described this case

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

noting “a plaintiff's claim for medical malpractice must be supported by expert medical testimony” and granting summary judgment because the plaintiffs “failed to adduce any expert medical testimony.”
affirming the Superior Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant medical provider because, inter alia, the record unambiguously reflected that the plaintiff’s allegations had not and would not be supported by expert medical testimony
“The Superior Court's Civil Rules are patterned upon the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
“The moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law because the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.”
“Summary judgment, requires the Court to examine the record to determine whether . . . the moving party has demonstrated that there are no material issues of fact in dispute and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Christie, Walsh, Holland

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

178 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Burkhart v. Davies

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.