Legal Opinion
Langfeldt-Haaland v. Saupe Enterprises, Inc.
Alaska Supreme Court
Decided February 17, 1989No. S-2387PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MATTHEWS, Chief Justice.
This petition raises the question whether an attorney for a plaintiff in a personal injury case is entitled to attend or tape record a Civil Rule 351 medical examination.
Svend Langfeldt-Haaland sued Saupe Enterprises to recover for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Pursuant to Civil Rule 35, Saupe moved for an order requiring that Svend submit to a physical examination by a physician selected by Saupe. Svend did not object, but asserted rights to record the exam and to have his attorney present. The court ordered Svend to submit to the…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Lee v. County Ct. of Erie CountyNew York Court of Appeals · 1971
- Houston v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1979
- McCracken v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1974
- Shepard v. BoweOregon Supreme Court · 1968
- Otton v. ZaboracAlaska Supreme Court · 1974
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Tomlin v. HolecekDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1993
- Lindell v. KaluginOregon Supreme Court · 2013
- Shirsat v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1996
- Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance Co. v. OverstreetKentucky Supreme Court · 2003
- US SEC. Ins. Co. v. CiminoSupreme Court of Florida · 2000
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.