Hinman v. Cornett

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff could not recover expenses covered by Medicare write-off under Idaho law because plaintiff was never obligated to pay that amount and allowing recovery could result in \double payment\
• concluding that the write-off amount \is not an item of damages for which plaintiff may recover because plaintiff has incurred no liability therefor\ (quoting Kastick v. U-Haul Co. of W. Mich. , 292 A.D.2d 797 , 740 N.Y.S.2d 167 , 169 (2002) )
• rejecting a plaintiff’s proposed exception to the peer review privilege statute when the statute left no room—even under “the rubric of public policy”—to adopt the proposed exception
• rejecting a plaintiff’s proposed exception to the peer review privilege statute when the statute left no room—even under “the rubric of public policy”—to adopt the proposed exception
• giving words in a statute “their plain, usual, and ordinary meaning”
• “Once proved, however, negligence per se does not differ in its legal consequences from ordinary negligence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).