579 F.2d 1200
1. Name the prevailing parties in the trial court proceeding.
2. Name the trial court. Also name the appellate court.
3. What kind of case is it?
4. In your own words, provide a summary of the facts of the case
5. What are the issues on appeal?
6. Who wrote the opinion?
7. What is the docket number?
8. On what date did the court issue the decision and how did the court rule?
9. Provide the text of Headnote  as well as the name of the author referenced in the portion of the text which is summarized by that headnote.
10. Provide the name of the attorney or attorneys who represented the appellants.
KeyCite the following case:
Parker v. State of Oklahoma, 556 P.2d 1298 (Okla. Crim. App. 1976).
A) How many citing references does the case provide?
B) Has a Maryland case cited the Parker case? If so, provide the case citation for the citing case.
C) Has a Connecticut case cited the Parker case? If so, provide the citation for the citing case.
D) How many of the citing cases are no longer good law? Provide the citation to the case or cases.
E) Have any legal encyclopedias cited Parker? If so, provide the citation to each of the articles.
This material may consist of step-by-step explanations on how to solve a problem or examples of proper writing, including the use of citations, references, bibliographies, and formatting. This material is made available for the sole purpose of studying and learning - misuse is strictly forbidden.1) Name the prevailing parties in the trial court proceeding.
Plaintiffs-Appellants = Mary K. Lane, and Ross E. Lane
Defendants-Appellees = W. S. WALLACE, Dan B. Holton, W. W.Wersich
2) Name the trial court. Also name the appellate court.
Trial Court = United States District Court for the District of Colorado
Appellate Court = United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
3) What kind of case is it?
A medical malpractice suit in which the jury returned a verdict for the three doctors
4) In your own words, provide a summary of the facts of the case
Mary Kathleen Lane and Ross E Lane, the plaintiffs, had been married for 20 years and have four children. On October 1972, radiological tests were performed on Mrs. Lane by two radiologists who were practicing in Pueblo, Colorado. The tests showed a suspicious radiolucency or lesion on her right renal pelvis and an urologist was consulted. Additional tests made in 1972 showed the presence of suspicious radiolucency. With the approval of Mrs. Lane, defendants performed exploratory kidney surgery which disclosed no tumor or malignancy. But later on a pseudocyst was discovered at the operative site and a doctor, other than the defendants, removed the right kidney. The plaintiffs filed a suit on the negligence of the defendants in not apprising plaintiffs of the hazards of exploratory surgery and in their diagnosis and surgery....