Anderson v. Florence
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
Rogosheske, Justice.
This appeal from a pretrial order pursuant to leave granted by this court concerns one of the most difficult problems encountered in the application of our Rules of Civil Procedure govern*352ing pretrial discovery to professional malpractice actions.1 Although the scope of the problem is much broader, the narrow question presented by this appeal is whether Rules 26.022 and 43.023 governing the scope of pretrial discovery and the cross-examination of an adverse party, authorize the trial court to compel defendant physician, when qualified as an expert witness, to answer…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Lawless v. CalawayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1944
- Iverson v. LancasterNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1968
- Mulder v. Parke Davis & CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1970
- Walker v. DistlerIdaho Supreme Court · 1956
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- Everett v. GoldmanSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1978
- Cornfeldt v. TongenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
- Rivera Alejandro v. Algarín LópezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1982
- Reinhardt v. ColtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
- Underdahl v. Commissioner of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 2007
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.