Legal Opinion

Lindell v. Kalugin

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided March 7, 2013No. CC CV10040946; SC S059437PublishedCited by 37 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtLandau, J.

In this personal injury action, defendant Kalugin moved for a defense medical examination pursuant to ORCP 44 A. Plaintiff Lindell objected on the ground that he would not submit to such an examination without being allowed to bring a friend, family member, or counsel with him. The trial court declined to impose the discovery condition that Lindell requested. Lindell then petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to permit the examination only on condition that he be allowed to bring with him a friend, family member, or counsel. This court issued an alternative…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. State v. GainesOregon Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Jones v. General Motors Corp.Oregon Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Holien v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1984
  4. State Ex Rel. Western Seed Production Corp. v. CampbellOregon Supreme Court · 1968
  5. State Ex Rel. Ricco v. BiggsOregon Supreme Court · 1953

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by37 opinions

  1. Couey v. AtkinsOregon Supreme Court · 2015
  2. Oregon Occupational Safety & Health Division v. CBI Services, Inc.Oregon Supreme Court · 2014
  3. State v. Guzman/HecklerOregon Supreme Court · 2019
  4. State v. EggersOregon Supreme Court · 2024
  5. State v. MooreOregon Supreme Court · 2017

32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API