Legal Opinion

Hill v. Huddleston

District Court, D. Maryland

Decided January 19, 1967No. Misc. 513PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

THOMSEN, Chief Judge.

Defendants in an action pending in the Eastern District of Tennessee have moved under Rule 37(a), F.R.Civ.P., that this Court compel a deponent to answer questions propounded on cross-examination during a deposition upon oral examination taken in Maryland. Deponent, a psychiatrist, refused to answer the questions in view of Ch. 503 of the Acts of Maryland of 1966, codified as Art. 35, sec. 13A, of the Code. The relevant portions of that Act read as follows:

“§ 13A. Privileged communications between patient and psychologist, psychiatrist or other patients.
“ * * *
“(b) Except…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. White v. KingCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1966
  3. Doughty v. PrettymanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1959
  4. John M. Palmer v. Alice Bradley Fisher, as of the Estate of Frederick T. Fisher, Deceased, Petition of Thomas F. PierceCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1956
  5. Application of CepedaDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1964

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Hardy v. RiserDistrict Court, N.D. Mississippi · 1970
  2. Mitsui & Co. (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Puerto Rico Water Resources AuthorityDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 1978
  3. Lind v. Canada Dry CorporationDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1968
  4. Hare v. Family Publications Service, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 1971
  5. Baylor v. Mading-Dugan Drug Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1972

5 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