Legal Opinion
Ley v. Dall
Supreme Court of Vermont
Decided September 16, 1988No. 88-076PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDooley, J.
Defendant in an action against him for dental malpractice brings this petition for extraordinary relief, pursuant to V.R.A.P. 21. He seeks relief from the Rutland Superior Court’s order granting plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to answer interrogatories relating to prior malpractice claims against him. We deny defendant’s petition because of his failure to show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion or usurped its judicial power.
Plaintiff served a set of interrogatories on defendant. Four of the interrogatories sought information regarding any negligence claims against him…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Schlagenhauf v. HolderSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. HollandSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Ex Parte FaheySupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- The Borden Company v. William Sylk and Harry S. Sylk v. Penrose Industries Corporation Sylvan Seal Milk, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1969
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Wesco, Inc. v. SorrellSupreme Court of Vermont · 2004
- F.E.F. v. CameronSupreme Court of Vermont · 1991
- Pease v. Windsor Development Review BoardSupreme Court of Vermont · 2011
- State v. ForteSupreme Court of Vermont · 1993
- Douglas v. Windham Superior CourtSupreme Court of Vermont · 1991
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.