Legal Opinion
Rubino v. G. D. Searle & Co.
New York Supreme Court
Decided February 13, 1973PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAlbert A. Oppido, J.
In this medical malpractice action, the defendant, G-. D. Searle & Co. (hereinafter referred to as Searle), seeks an order permitting it to make a videotape recording, in addition to a stenographic transcription, of the examination before trial of Doctor Victor A. Drill, the former director of biological research of Searle. The defendant, Searle, seeks the opportunity to videotape Dr. Drill’s examination, at its own expense, for use at the trial of this action, pursuant to CPLR 3117, on the ground that Dr. Drill will be unable to testify at the trial of the action due to his having suffered…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Paramore v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1969
- Joseph Hendricks v. Harold R. Swenson, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1972
- State v. NewmanCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1971
- People v. HeadingMichigan Court of Appeals · 1972
- Gotthelf v. Hillcrest Lumber Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Hernandez v. Graebel Van LinesDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1991
- People v. MoranCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1974
- Inhofe v. WisemanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1989
- Perry v. Mohawk Rubber Co.District Court, D. South Carolina · 1974
- State Ex Rel. Lucas v. MossSupreme Court of Missouri · 1973
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.