Bowing v. Delaware Rayon Co.
Superior Court of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
Layton, C. J.,
delivering the opinion of the Court:
The defendant contends that this Court has inherent power, in its discretion, to direct a physical examination of the plaintiff in an action to recover damages for personal injuries. A majority of the jurisdictions affirm the power. See Williams v. Chattanooga Iron Works, 131 Tenn. 683, 176 S. W. 1031, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 101; note to Brown v. Hutzler Co., 51 A. L. R. 184; 4 Wigmore, Ev. (2d Ed.), § 2220.
Obviously, however, if this power is expressly conferred by the statute, and if thereunder the desired relief may be had, the question whether…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Camden & Suburban Railway Co. v. StetsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Lyon v. Manhattan Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Williams v. Chattanooga Iron WorksTennessee Supreme Court · 1915
- Karcher v. GreenSuperior Court of Delaware · 1888
- McGovern v. HopeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1899
3Cited by13 opinions
- Monacelli v. GrimesSupreme Court of Delaware · 1953
- Distefano v. LambornSuperior Court of Delaware · 1951
- United Securities Corporation v. BrutonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1965
- Harmon Ex Rel. Harmon v. EudailySuperior Court of Delaware · 1979
- Hadlich v. American Mail LineDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1949
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.