174 So. 2d 660 - Simon v. Castille’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In an action in which the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending or in which the judgment was originally rendered may order him to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician, except as otherwise provided by law. The order may be made only on motion for good cause shown and upon notice to the party to be examined and to all other parties and shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lindsey v. Escude · 263 So. 2d 50 - Vaughn v. Commercial Union Insurance Co. of New York

2. “merely one of the `conditions' within the discretion of the trial judge to specify under [La.Code Civ.P. art. 1464]. [1] " Id. at 662. This court addressed the issue, stating as follows: We note at the outset that the plain language of [La.Code Civ.P. art. 1464] does not provide for the presence of plaintiff's attorney at the examination. The article clearly gives great discretion to the trial judge. He may deny the motion unless `good cause' for the examination is shown. He may `specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination [....]' The defendant does not even have the absolute right to choose the physician, this also being left finally to the court's discretion. Thus, the language of the statute itself appears to support defendant's position. Id. at 662. Recognizing that this issue was res nova in Louisiana, and after considering the jurisprudence of other states and the Federal Courts, this court, in Simon , concluded that a "plaintiff does not have an absolute right to have [his or] her attorney present at [a] medical examination requested by defendants,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 937 So. 2d 895 - Henry v. Barlow

3. “Able counsel for defendant has pointed out that the premise of the argument contained in the affidavit is that all doctors retained by defendants to examine plaintiff's will act improperly. We cannot accept such a premise. It must be presumed that doctors will conduct their physical examinations properly. However, if, for good cause shown, the trial judge, in his discretion, decides that a particular doctor may act improperly, he may refuse the request for medical examination; or designate another doctor in whom the court does have confidence; or he may specify the scope of the examination; or require as a condition that plaintiff's counsel be present....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. White v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.