Discovery
Civ-Pro
Case Summary |
|
2733 REVIEW DENIED In an action against a sperm bank based on the claim that the bank was negligent in screening the sperm it purchased and supplied to plaintiffs, plaintiffs should be given an opportunity to depose the donor of the sperm.CitationJOHNSON v SUPERIOR COURT (Tainted Semen) 80 CA4 1050 [See: EvC 994,991; Kizer v Sulnick 202 CA3 431; Metropolitan Creditors v Sadri 15 CA4 1821; FamC 7613] |
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
Finz Case Law Summaries (Finz Advance Tapes)
|
|||||
Copyright by Pincus Legal Education, Inc. ©1992 - 2022
|
|||||