In Re John A. Mitchell

Fifth Circuit

In Re John A. Mitchell

563 F.2d 143

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided October 12, 1977·No. 77-2451·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

BY THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari or other appropriate writ and for other relief is GRANTED. The scope of Rule 35, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not coextensive with that of Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 35 requires that examinations be conducted by physicians. Therefore, although the instant petition evinces a discovery order compatible with Rule 26 the order is erroneous in light of Rule 35. See Lavergne v. Davis, 5th Cir., No. 77-2465 [unpublished order] (mandamus granted in similar context).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BY THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED that the petition for writ of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari or other appropriate writ and for other relief is GRANTED. The scope of Rule 35, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is not coextensive with that of Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 35 requires that examinations be conducted by physicians. Therefore, although the instant petition evinces a discovery order compatible with Rule 26 the order is erroneous in light of Rule 35. See Lavergne v. Davis, 5th Cir., No. 77-2465 [unpublished order] (mandamus granted in similar context).

In Re John A. Mitchell, 563 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

563 F.2d 143 (In Re John A. Mitchell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related