Legal Opinion
Boswell v. Schultz
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided December 4, 2007No. 104,840PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtKauger, J.
¶ 1 The issue presented is whether a party to a lawsuit who is required to undergo a medical examination pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 § 32351 may videotape his or her examina*392tion. We hold that he or she may. Therefore, we assume original jurisdiction and grant the writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus.
FACTS
¶ 2 On July 28, 2006, the petitioners, Cody and Cheryl Boswell, filed a lawsuit against the respondent, Kandee Schultz, seeking to recover damages for personal injuries sustained from an automobile accident. As part of the pretrial discovery process, the respondent sought to have the…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Union Pacific Railway Co. v. BotsfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Huff v. StateSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1988
- Zabkowicz v. West Bend Co.District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1984
- City of Kingfisher v. AltizerSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1903
- Special Indemnity Fund v. BedfordSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1993
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Lindell v. KaluginOregon Supreme Court · 2013
- Howard v. Nitro-Lift Technologies, L.L.C.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2011
- ALFALFA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANYCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2014
- ALFALFA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. v. MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANYCourt of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma · 2014
- Boswell v. SchultzSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2007
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.