Legal Opinion
DeMoss Rexall Drugs v. Dobson
Indiana Court of Appeals
Decided July 10, 1989No. 26A01-8903-CV-104PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROBERTSON, Judge.
The primary issue we consider in this appeal is whether certain recorded statements taken from representatives of the appellants, DeMoss Rexall Drugs and pharmacist Robert Malcolm (collectively referred to as DeMoss) by DeMoss's insurance carrier are discoverable pursuant to Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 26(B).
We affirm the trial court's ruling in favor of discovery.
The appellees, Barbara and James Dob-son, alleged in their complaint against De-Moss that on August 14, 1987, Barbara Dobson went to DeMoss to have a prescription for Snythroid filled but the pharmacist gave…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Carver v. Allstate InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. Georgia · 1982
- State Ex Rel. Cain v. BarkerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1976
- In re L.J.M.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1985
- Snodgrass v. BaizeIndiana Court of Appeals · 1980
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Terre Haute Regional Hospital, Inc. v. TruebloodIndiana Supreme Court · 1992
- Richey v. ChappellIndiana Supreme Court · 1992
- Henderson v. Zurn Industries, Inc.District Court, S.D. Indiana · 1990
- National Engineering & Contracting Co. v. C & P Engineering & Manufacturing Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1997
- Amax Coal Co. v. AdamsIndiana Court of Appeals · 1992
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.