Horner v. Spalitto

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a pharmacist “must exercise the care and prudence which a reasonably careful and prudent pharmacist would exercise” and that the fact-finder must determine what this requires in a particular case
• stating that a pharmacist 17 “must exercise the care and prudence which a reasonably careful and prudent 18 pharmacist would exercise” and that the fact-finder must determine what this requires 19 in a particular case
• reversing summary judgment where the appellate court did not have “in the record presented . . . sufficient detail to determine whether [the defendant] fulfilled his duty as a pharmacist”
• reversing summary 4 judgment where the appellate court did not have “in the record presented . . . 5 sufficient detail to determine whether [the defendant] fulfilled his duty as a 6 pharmacist”
• rejecting accuracy standard after considering state and federal statutes related to the pharmacy profession and stating that “[r]elegating a pharmacist to the role of order filler . . . fails to appreciate the role recognized” in the state and federal statutes
• rejecting accuracy standard after 18 considering state and federal statutes related to the pharmacy profession and stating 31 1 that “[r]elegating a pharmacist to the role of order filler . . . fails to appreciate the role 2 recognized” in the state and federal statutes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).