Legal Opinion

Cardinal v. University of Rochester

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 9, 1946PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtVan Duser, J.

There appears to be no objection raised to the oral examination of the plaintiff as requested in paragraph (a) of the notice of motion. The situation is different, however, as to some parts of the request for a physical examination.

*824Among the matters as to which the plaintiff is asked to submit to a physical examination are X-ray photographs, a sample of urine for analysis, a blood examination, removal of a sufficient quantity of the food contents of plaintiff’s stomach to permit a gastric analysis, and the performance of a “ bone marrow biopsy consisting of making a small skin incision over…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hayt v. Brewster, Gordon & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
  2. Bartolotta v. Delco Appliance Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938
  3. Carrig v. OakesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1940
  4. Grill v. Mathieson Alkali WorksAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In re Certain Asbestos CasesDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 1986
  2. Adlerstein v. South Nassau Communities HospitalNew York Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Abex Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API