Reisner v. Regents of the University of California

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that physicians owed duty to patient’s boyfriend to warn patient of her HIV status and of dangers associated' with the disease, even where physicians did not know boyfriend existed
• holding that physicians owed duty to patient's boyfriend to warn patient of her HIV status and of dangers associated with the disease, even where physicians did not know boyfriend existed
• holding that the doctor had a duty to the future sexual partner of his teenage patient to warn the patient or “others likely to apprise the [plaintiff] of the danger” that his patient had likely been infected with HIV through a contaminated blood transfusion
• holding that the doctor had a duty to the future sexual partner of his teenage patient to warn the patient or “others likely to apprise the [plaintiff] of the danger” that his patient had likely been infected with HIV through a contaminated blood transfusion
• three years not too remote

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).