Legal Opinion

In Re John A. Mitchell

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided October 12, 1977No. 77-2451PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BY THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari or other appropriate writ and for other relief is GRANTED. The scope of Rule 35, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not coextensive with that of Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 35 requires that examinations be conducted by physicians. Therefore, although the instant petition evinces a discovery order compatible with Rule 26 the order is erroneous in light of Rule 35. See Lavergne v. Davis, 5th Cir., No. 77-2465 [unpublished order] (mandamus granted in similar context).

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. 22 Fair empl.prac.cas. 158, 15 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7940 Anthony T. Lee, United States of America, Plaintiff- Intervenor, Amicus Curiae, National Education Association, Inc., Plaintiff-Intervenor v. Pickens County School SystemCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. James J. Acosta, Sr. v. Tenneco Oil Company and Mobil Oil CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1990
  2. Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc.District Court, M.D. Florida · 1988
  3. In re Certain Asbestos CasesDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1986
  4. Williams v. SmithSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1991
  5. Stanislawski v. Upper River Services, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1991

5 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