Legal Opinion

Bowing v. Delaware Rayon Co.

Superior Court of Delaware

Decided January 8, 1937No. 109PublishedCited by 13 opinions

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

  1. Camden & Suburban Railway Co. v. StetsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
  2. Lyon v. Manhattan Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1894
  3. Williams v. Chattanooga Iron WorksTennessee Supreme Court · 1915
  4. Karcher v. GreenSuperior Court of Delaware · 1888
  5. McGovern v. HopeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1899

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Monacelli v. GrimesSupreme Court of Delaware · 1953
  2. Distefano v. LambornSuperior Court of Delaware · 1951
  3. United Securities Corporation v. BrutonDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1965
  4. Harmon Ex Rel. Harmon v. EudailySuperior Court of Delaware · 1979
  5. Hadlich v. American Mail LineDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1949

8 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