From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Mitchell

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Oct 12, 1977
563 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1977)

Summary

granting mandamus in similar context

Summary of this case from Acosta v. Tenneco Oil Co.

Opinion

No. 77-2451.

October 12, 1977.

William P. Rutledge, Lafayette, La., for appellant.

W. Eugene Davis, U.S. Dist. Judge, Lafayette, La., J. L. Cox, Jr., Lake Charles, La., for Lake Charles Dredging Towing Co.

On Petition from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

Before COLEMAN, GODBOLD and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.


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 See Lavergne v. Davis, 5th Cir., No. 77-2465 [unpublished order] (mandamus granted in similar context).


Summaries of

In re Mitchell

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
Oct 12, 1977
563 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1977)

granting mandamus in similar context

Summary of this case from Acosta v. Tenneco Oil Co.
Case details for

In re Mitchell

Case Details

Full title:IN RE JOHN A. MITCHELL, PETITIONER

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Date published: Oct 12, 1977

Citations

563 F.2d 143 (5th Cir. 1977)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Smith

Our research has revealed that those federal courts that have considered the issue have held that…

Acosta v. Tenneco Oil Co.

Finally, the ability of a trial court to coerce a party to submit to a vocational examination and interview,…