Womack v. Stevens Transport, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that a psychiatric evaluation was relevant, and good cause was shown, because without it, the defense would be limited to cross-examining evaluations offered by the plaintiff's experts
• finding good cause for psychiatric IME because defense would be limited to cross-examination absent ability to develop its own evidence as to causation, an “insufficient test of truth”
• finding good cause for psychiatric IME because defense would be limited to cross-examination absent ability to develop its own evidence as to causation, an “insufficient test of truth”
• good cause existed for requested Rule 35 examination because mere cross-examination of plaintiffs expert would be an “insufficient test of truth”
• “The promulgators of Rule 35 deemed that the opportunity to cross-examine was an ‘insufficient test of truth’ and as a result, independent examinations were prescribed.”
• “The promulgators of Rule 35 deemed that the opportunity to cross-examine [the other party’s evaluations and expert reports] was an “insufficient test of truth” and as a result, independent examinations were prescribed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Ornelas v. Southern Tire Mart, LLC
  S.D. Texas· 2013-03-28· cited 51×
• Greenhorn v. Marriott Intern., Inc.
  D. Kansas· 2003-03-27· cited 25×
• Bowen v. Parking Authority of the City of Camden
  D. New Jersey· 2003-04-04· cited 17×
• Stuff v. Simmons
  Indiana Court of Appeals· 2005-12-12· cited 10×
• E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. (In re)
  S.D. Ohio· 2019-05-15· cited 3×
• Dasilva v. Gagliardo
  Massachusetts Superior Court· 2003-12-30· cited 2×

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Schlagenhauf v. Holder
  Supreme Court· 1965-01-18· cited 1,194×
• Kraus v. Taylor
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1998-04-03· cited 78×
• Tomlin v. Holecek
  D. Minnesota· 1993-08-24· cited 61×
• Ragge v. MCA/Universal Studios
  C.D. California· 1995-03-29· cited 46×
• Rost v. State Board of Psychology
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1995-05-22· cited 28×