Charter v. Chleborad
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
551 F.2d 246 (1977)
The plaintiff had surgery on both of his legs. As a result of surgery complications, he had to have both legs amputated. He brought a medical malpractice suit against the surgeon (defendant). At trial, John Alder, an attorney, testified for the defense. On cross-examination, Alder testified that some of his clients were insurance companies in medical malpractice cases. The plaintiff asked him which companies, specifically, he represented but the trial court upheld the defendant’s objection to the questioning. The jury found for the defendant and the trial court denied the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. In that motion, the plaintiff stated that one of Alder’s clients was the same insurance company that represented the defendant. The plaintiff appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 707,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 707,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 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.