Legal Opinion

Rutherford v. Alben

District Court, S.D. West Virginia

Decided May 24, 1940PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HARRY E. WATKINS, District Judge.

Motion has been made under Rule 35(b) (1), Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, to require the defendants to furnish plaintiff with a copy of a written report of their physician who examined plaintiff.

It appears that on or about April 1, 1940, plaintiff voluntarily submitted to physical examination, including the taking of X-rays, by a physician selected by defendants. Plaintiff has also been examined by his own physician, and a copy of such physician’s report, together with X-rays taken, have been furnished to…

2Cited by6 opinions

  1. Stormo v. StrongSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Peters v. NelsonDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1994
  3. Moore v. Calavar Corp.District Court, W.D. Louisiana · 1992
  4. Vopelak v. WilliamsDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1967
  5. Ziemann v. Burlington County Bridge CommissionDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1994

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API