Bull v. McCuskey
Nevada Supreme Court
615 P.2d 957 (1980)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
An 86-year-old woman was admitted to the hospital with several injuries sustained in a car accident. Dr. Charles McCuskey (plaintiff) was assigned to manage the patient’s orthopedic issues. The patient’s nephew, Milan Jeffers, dismissed McCuskey after the patient developed bed sores, though the bed sores were not apparently traceable to misconduct by McCuskey. Jeffers contacted his attorney, Samuel Bull (defendant), who filed an action against McCuskey for medical malpractice. Bull did not examine any medical records, communicate with any hospital staff, depose McCuskey, or attempt to retain an expert for trial. Before the trial, Bull made a settlement offer of $750 to McCuskey, which McCuskey refused. During the trial, Bull made several disparaging comments about McCuskey, including allegations of professional incompetence and mentions of a potential pact with the devil. The jury found in favor of McCuskey. McCuskey then brought suit against Bull for abuse of process. The jury found that Bull had known the medical-malpractice claim was baseless and had abused the legal process by attempting to coerce a settlement. McCuskey was awarded compensatory and punitive damages. Bull appealed, his main contention being that McCuskey lacked sufficient evidence to prove abuse of process. The Nevada Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thompson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.