Legal Opinion

People ex rel. Deuel v. Shaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided May 22, 1940PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: We think that the court should have instructed the physician, who had treated defendant and whom defendant called as a witness, to *978answer certain questions which the physician had refused to answer upon the ground that he had not received compensation to testify as an expert. A physician, when subpoenaed, must attend court and may be required to testify to what he knows. “ As to any fact within the knowledge of a professional witness, he stands upon an equality with every other witness. But it is well settled that a…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Mount v. WelshOregon Supreme Court · 1926

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. People Ex Rel. Kraushaar Bros. & Co. v. ThorpeNew York Court of Appeals · 1947
  2. In Re the Estate of RothkoNew York Surrogate's Court · 1974
  3. McDermott v. Manhattan Eye, Ear & Throat HospitalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1962
  4. In re the Estate of StevensNew York Surrogate's Court · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API