Supervision and collaboration requirements: the vulnerability of nurse practitioners and its implications for retail health.

This document cites

• Federal Cases - 55 U.S. 468 (1853), Philadelphia & Reading R Co v. Derby
• Alabama - 954 So.2d 545 (Ala. 2006), 1030488, Ware v. Timmons
• California - 38 Cal.3d 137, 24336, Fein v. Permanente Medical Group
• Florida - 492 So.2d 697 (Fla.App. 1 Dist. 1986), BH-180, Britt v. Department of Professional Regulation
• Florida - 642 So.2d 5 (Fla.App. 5 Dist. 1994), 93-2636, Southland Const., Inc. v. Richeson Corp.



See all quotations

• Florida - 943 So.2d 209 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 2006), 3D04-2310, Siegel v. Husak
• Maryland - 134 A.2d 296 (Md. 1957), 242, Keitz v. National Paving & Contracting Co.
• Maine - 735 A.2d 969 (Me. 1999), Was-99-2, Gafner v. Down East Community Hosp.
• Michigan - 649 N.W.2d 23 (Mich. 2002), 118766, Rogers v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.
• North Carolina - 628 S.E.2d 851 (N.C.App. 2006), COA04-1415, Diggs v. Novant Health, Inc.
• Oklahoma - 903 P.2d 263 (Okla. 1995), 73929, Strubhart v. Perry Memorial Hosp. Trust Authority
• Pennsylvania - 591 A.2d 703 (Pa. 1991), Thompson v. Nason Hosp.
• Tennessee - 805 S.W.2d 380 (Tenn.App. 1990), 01-A-01-9005CV-00185, Dooley v. Everett
• Pennsylvania - 803 A.2d 738 (Pa.Super. 2002), Parker v. Freilich
• Virginia - 544 S.E.2d 331 (Va. 2001), 001074, Prosise v. Foster
• Texas - 170 S.W.3d 185 (Tex.App. - Dallas 2005), 05-04-00791, Yancy v. United Surgical Partners Intl., Inc.
• Texas - 225 S.W.3d 868 (Tex.App. - Dallas 2007), 05-06-00842, Simonson v. Keppard
• Washington - 201 P.3d 331 (Wash.App. Div. 3 2008), 26564-1, Estep v. Hamilton
• Wisconsin - 423 N.W.2d 848 (Wis. 1988), 87-0029, Pamperin v. Trinity Memorial Hosp.
• Wisconsin - 481 N.W.2d 277 (Wis. 1992), 89-2039, Kashishian v. Port