James Ex Rel. James v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that apparent agency claim could not succeed because independent contractor status was “clearly set out,” thus concluding that summary judgment was proper
• finding the “holding out” element of Gilbert was not met where the patient signed a consent for treatment form that expressly stated “ ‘the physicians on staff at this hospital are not employees or agents of the hospital’ ”
• “[plaintiff] did not in fact rely on any representations of the hospital or the doctor in going to Ingalls”
• once made, judicial admission, such as testimony from deposition, cannot be contradicted in motion for summary judgment
• \[plaintiff] did not in fact rely on any representations of the hospital or the doctor in going to Ingalls\
• the plaintiffs assertions in affidavit filed in response to motion for summary judgment and made after she already testified conversely in deposition did not properly create genuine issue of material fact

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).