Cleveland v. Wong

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiffs injury was not reasonably ascertainable when he had no reason to suspect that his conditions following surgery were permanent or the result of negligence
• finding that defendant failed to establish prejudicial misconduct where there was no evidence that the extraneous materials were actually considered by the jury
• stating that jury's use of extraneous material will not constitute a ground for reversal unless it is shown to have substantially prejudiced the rights of a party
• noting that, without any indication that the condition was permanent, “[t]he symptoms of the injury were known to the plaintiff, but the fact of injury was not reasonably or immediately ascertainable”
• discussing plaintiffs' damages for \lost time or wages lost\ in connection with the value of the time the plaintiff had lost in connection with a \laundry and dry cleaning establishment\ operated by the plaintiff and his wife
• cause of action for negligent surgery did not accrue with symptoms of initial surgery, but with diagnosis of injury as permanent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).