Robbins v. Jordan
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
181 F.2d 793 (1950)
- Written by DeAnna Swearingen, LLM
Facts
The Robbinses (plaintiffs) sued Dr. Jordan (defendant) for medical malpractice related to the birth of their child. In the pleadings, the Robbinses alleged that Dr. Jordan held himself out as “a practicing physician…well qualified in the treatment of disorders and diseases of women.” At trial, the court determined that this allegation was not sufficient to allow the Robbinses to raise the claim that Jordan had held himself out as an obstetrician and thus owed a heightened duty of care. The Robbinses requested leave to amend the complaint, but the trial court refused on the ground that the change in the Robbinses’ theory would prejudice the defense. After the Robbinses presented their case, the trial judge entered a directed verdict for Jordan. The Robbinses appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Clark, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
