Legal Opinion

Milligan v. Union Pac. R.

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided December 3, 1934Published

1Opinion of the Court

PATTERSON, District Judge.

The action is at law for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered because of the defendant’s negligence. The defendant has moved for a physical examination of the plaintiff before trial. The plaintiff takes the position that the court lacks power to order such an examination.

In the matter of physical examination of a party by competent surgeons, a United States court follows the statutes of the state in which the court sits. If the state has no statute on the point, there will be no physical examination. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 11 S.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Union Pacific Railway Co. v. BotsfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  2. Camden & Suburban Railway Co. v. StetsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  3. Bailey v. Texas Co.District Court, E.D. New York · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API