563 F.2d 143 - In re Mitchell — 563 F.2d 143

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 1990

7 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1William P. Rutledge, Lafayette, La., for appellant.

¶2W. Eugene Davis, U. S. Dist. Judge, Lafayette, La., J. L. Cox, Jr., Lake Charles, La., for Lake Charles Dredging & Towing Co.

¶3Before COLEMAN, GODBOLD and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.

¶4BY THE COURT:

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 See Lavergne v. Davis, 5th Cir., No. 77-2465 [unpublished order] (mandamus granted in similar context).