In Re John A. Mitchell

Fifth Circuit

In Re John A. Mitchell

563 F.2d 143

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 12, 1977

Docket77-2451

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 563 F.2d 143 (In Re John A. Mitchell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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 See Lavergne v. Davis, 5th Cir., No. 77-2465 [unpublished order] (mandamus granted in similar context).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 See Lavergne v. Davis, 5th Cir., No. 77-2465 [unpublished order] (mandamus granted in similar context).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

563 F.2d 143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-john-a-mitchell-ca5-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack