Legal Opinion

Hill v. Hietala

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided May 29, 1964No. 39,209PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Murphy, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial in an action for personal injuries resulting from an automobile accident. Plaintiff had a verdict which she feels was adequate. The errors assigned raise only one question — whether the trial court erred in ordering a physical examination of plaintiff in the course of the trial. It is argued that plaintiff was prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 35.01, Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:

“In an action in which the mental or physical condition or the blood…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Wittenberg v. OnsgardSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1899
  2. Flythe v. Eastern Carolina Coach Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
  3. Rief v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
  4. Ziskovsky v. MillerNebraska Supreme Court · 1930
  5. Gregoris v. ManosOhio Court of Appeals · 1941

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Ossenfort Ex Rel. Ossenfort v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
  2. Haynes v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  3. Metropolitan Life Insurance v. LehmannCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1972
  4. Higgins v. LufiCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984
  5. Wills v. Red Lake Municipal Liquor StoreCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API