Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Mohr v. Williams Case Brief

Supreme Court of Minnesota1905Docket #65113539
95 Minn. 261 104 N.W. 12 1905 Minn. LEXIS 667 Torts Health Law

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A surgeon obtained consent to operate on a patient’s right ear. While the patient was anesthetized, he discovered the left ear was worse and operated on it instead. The court held this non-consensual touching constituted a battery, regardless of the surgeon’s good faith or the operation’s success.

Legal Significance: This case is a cornerstone of informed consent doctrine, establishing that a medical procedure performed without a patient’s express or implied consent constitutes a battery. It affirms a patient’s absolute right to self-determination and bodily integrity, even against a physician’s good-faith medical judgment.

Mohr v. Williams Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Plaintiff consulted Defendant, a specialist physician, for a problem with her right ear. After an examination, Defendant advised an operation on the right ear, to which Plaintiff consented. She was not informed of any significant disease in her left ear and understood the operation was only for the right ear. Plaintiff went to the hospital and was placed under anesthesia. While she was unconscious, Defendant conducted a more thorough examination and discovered that the left ear was in a more serious condition than the right. After consulting with Plaintiff’s family physician, who was present at Plaintiff’s request but not authorized to consent, Defendant decided to operate on the left ear instead. The operation on the left ear was performed skillfully and was medically successful. Plaintiff later sued Defendant for assault and battery, alleging the operation was unauthorized. The jury found for the plaintiff. The trial court granted a new trial based on excessive damages, and both parties appealed.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does a surgeon commit an assault and battery by performing a successful, non-negligent operation on a different part of the patient’s body than that for which consent was given, when the patient is under anesthesia and no immediate emergency exists?

Yes. The court held that performing an operation without the patient’s consent Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehen

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does a surgeon commit an assault and battery by performing a successful, non-negligent operation on a different part of the patient’s body than that for which consent was given, when the patient is under anesthesia and no immediate emergency exists?

Conclusion

Mohr v. Williams is a foundational case in tort law that solidifies Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit i

Legal Rule

Any unlawful or unauthorized touching of another's person constitutes an assault and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commo

Legal Analysis

The court's analysis is grounded in the fundamental right to personal inviolability. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est labor

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A non-consensual medical operation is a battery, regardless of the physician’s
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

It is better to risk saving a guilty man than to condemn an innocent one.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+