Schlagenhauf v. Holder, No. 8

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtGOLDBERG
Citation379 U.S. 104,13 L.Ed.2d 152,85 S.Ct. 234
Docket NumberNo. 8
Decision Date23 November 1964
PartiesRobert L. SCHLAGENHAUF, Petitioner, v. Cale J. HOLDER, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Indiana

379 U.S. 104
85 S.Ct. 234
13 L.Ed.2d 152
Robert L. SCHLAGENHAUF, Petitioner,

v.

Cale J. HOLDER, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Indiana.

No. 8.
Argued Oct. 13, 1964.
Decided Nov. 23, 1964.

[Syllabus from pages 104-106 intentionally omitted]

Page 106

Robert S. Smith, Indianapolis, Ind., for petitioner.

Erle A. Kightlinger, Indianapolis, Ind., for respondent.

Mr. Justice GOLDBERG, delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case involves the validity and construction of Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as applied to the examination of a defendant in a negligence action. Rule 35(a) provides:

'Physical and Mental Examination of Persons. (a) Order for Examination. In an action in which the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may order him to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician. 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.'

I.

An action based on diversity of citizenship was brought in the District Court seeking damages arising from personal injuries suffered by passengers of a bus which collided with the rear of a tractor-trailer. The named defendants were The Greyhound Corporation, owner of

Page 107

the bus; petitioner, Robert L. Schlagenhauf, the bus driver; Contract Carriers, Inc., owner of the tractor; Joseph L. McCorkhill, driver of the tractor;1 and National Lead Company, owner of the trailer. Answers were filed by each of the defendants denying negligence.

Greyhound then cross-claimed against Contract Carriers and National Lead for damage to Greyhound's bus, alleging that the collision was due solely to their negligence in that the tractor-trailer was driven at an unreasonably low speed, had not remained in its lane, and was not equipped with proper rear lights. Contract Carriers filed an answer to this cross-claim denying its negligence and asserting '(t)hat the negligence of the driver of the * * * bus (petitioner Schlagenhauf) proximately caused and contributed to * * * Greyhound's damages.'

Pursuant to a pretrial order, Contract Carriers filed a letter—which the trial court treated as, and we consider to be, part of the answer—alleging that Schlagenhauf was 'not mentally or physically capable' of driving a bus at the time of the accident.

Contract Carriers and National Lead then petitioned the District Court for an order directing petitioner Schlagenhauf to submit to both mental and physical examinations by one specialist in each of the following fields:

(1) Internal medicine;

(2) Ophthalmology;

(3) Neurology; and

(4) Psychiatry.

For the purpose of offering a choice to the District Court of one specialist in each field, the petition recommended two specialists in internal medicine, ophthalmology, and psychiatry, respectively, and three specialists in neurology—a total of nine physicians. The petition alleged

Page 108

that the mental and physical condition of Schlagenhauf was 'in controversy' as it had been raised by Contract Carriers' answer to Greyhound's cross-claim. This was supported by a brief of legal authorities and an affidavit of Contract Carriers' attorney stating that Schlagenhauf had seen red lights 10 to 15 seconds before the accident, that another witness had seen the rear lights of the trailer from a distance of three-quarters to one-half mile, and that Schlagenhauf had been involved in a prior accident.

The certified record indicates that petitioner's attorneys filed in the District Court a brief in opposition to this petition asserting, among other things, that 'the physical and mental condition of the defendant Robert L. Schlagenhauf is not 'in controversy' herein in the sense that these words are used in Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (and) that good cause has not been shown for the multiple examinations prayed for by the cross-defendant * * *.'2

While disposition of this petition was pending, National Lead filed its answer to Greyhound's cross-claim and itself 'cross-claimed' against Greyhound and Schlagenhauf for damage to its trailer. The answer asserted generally that Schlagenhauf's negligence proximately caused the accident. The cross-claim additionally alleged that Greyhound and Schlagenhauf were negligent

'(b)y permitting said bus to be operated over and upon said public highway by the said defendant, Robert L. Schlagenhauf, when both the said Greyhound Corporation and said Robert L. Schlagenhauf knew that the eyes and vision of the said Robert L. Schlagenhauf was (sic) impaired and deficient.'

The District Court, on the basis of the petition filed by Contract Carriers, and without any hearing, ordered

Page 109

Schlagenhauf to submit to nine examinations—one by each of the recommended specialists—despite the fact that the petition clearly requested a total of only four examinations.3

Petitioner applied for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals against the respondent, the District Court Judge, seeking to have set aside the order requiring his mental and physical examinations. The Court of Appeals denied mandamus, one judge dissenting, 321 F.2d 43.

We granted certiorari to review undecided questions concerning the validity and construction of Rule 35. 375 U.S. 983, 84 S.Ct. 516, 11 L.Ed.2d 471.

II.

A threshold problem arises due to the fact that this case was in the Court of Appeals on a petition for a writ of mandamus. Although it is not disputed that we have jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals. 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) (1958 ed.), respondent urges that the judgment below dismissing the writ be affirmed on the ground that mandamus was not an appropriate remedy.

'The traditional use of the writ in aid of appellate jurisdiction both at common law and in the federal courts4 has been to confine an inferior court to a lawful

Page 110

exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction * * *,' Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n, 319 U.S. 21, 26, 63 S.Ct. 938, 941, 87 L.Ed. 1185.

It is, of course, well settled, that the writ is not to be used as a substitute for appeal, Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259 260, 67 S.Ct. 1558, 1559, 91 L.Ed. 2041, even though hardship may result from delay and perhaps unnecessary trial, Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 382—383, 74 S.Ct. 145, 147 148, 98 L.Ed. 106; United States Alkali Export Ass'n v. United States, 325 U.S. 196, 202—203, 65 S.Ct. 1120, 1124, 89 L.Ed. 1554; Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n, supra, 319 U.S., at 31, 63 S.Ct., at 944. The writ is appropriately issued, however, when there is 'usurpation of judicial power' or a clear abuse of discretion, Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, supra, 346 U.S., at 383, 74 S.Ct., at 148.

Here petitioner's basic allegation was lack of power in a district court to order a mental and physical examination of a defendant. That this issue was substantial is underscored by the fact that the challenged order requiring examination of a defendant appears to be the first of its kind in any reported decision in the federal courts under Rule 35,5 and we have found only one such modern case in the state courts.6 The Court of Appeals recognized that it had the power to review on a petition for mandamus the basic, undecided question of whether a district court could order the mental or physical examination of a defendant. We agree that, under these unusual circumstances and in light of the authorities, the Court of Appeals had such power.

The petitioner, however, also alleged that, even if Rule 35 gives a district court power to order mental

Page 111

and physical examinations of a defendant in an appropriate case, the District Court here exceeded that power in ordering examinations when petitioner's mental and physical condition was not 'in controversy' and no 'good cause' was shown, both as expressly required by Rule 35. As we read its opinion, the Court of Appeals reached the 'in controversy' issue and determined it adversely to petitioner. 321 F.2d at 51. It did not, however, reach the issue of 'good cause,' apparently considering that it was not appropriate to do so on a petition for mandamus.7 Ibid.

We recognize that in the ordinary situation where the sole issue presented is the district court's determination that 'good cause' has been shown for an examination, mandamus is not an appropriate remedy, absent, of course, a clear abuse of discretion. See Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, supra, 346 U.S., at 383, 74 S.Ct., at 148. Here, however, the petition was properly before the court on a substantial allegation of usurpation of power in ordering any examination of a defendant, an issue of first impression that called for the construction and application of Rule 35 in a new context. The meaning of Rule 35's requirements of 'in controversy' and 'good cause' also raised issues of first impression. In our view, the Court of Appeals should have also, under these special circumstances, determined the 'good cause' issue, so as to avoid piecemeal litigation and to settle new and important problems.

Thus we believe that the Court of Appeals had power to determine all of the issues presented by the petition for mandamus.8 Normally, wise judicial administration

Page 112

would counsel remand of the cause to the Court of Appeals to reconsider this issue of 'good cause.' However, in this instance the issue concerns the construction and application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is thus appropriate for us to determine on the merits the issues presented and to formulate the necessary guidelines in this area. See Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 84 S.Ct. 805, 11 L.Ed.2d 945. As this Court stated in Los Angeles Brush Mfg. Corp. v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
1029 practice notes
  • Pope v. United States, No. 18272.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • March 14, 1967
    ...4 vote, Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1, 61 S.Ct. 422, 89 L.Ed. 479 (1941), and against constitutional attack, Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 114, 85 S.Ct. 234, 13 L.Ed.2d 152 372 F.2d 720 We recognize, too, as the defense also urges, that it has been held that: 1. A defendant's ......
  • United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, No. 13-50561
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • May 31, 2017
    ...of persons who aren't parties to the mandamus petition. See, e.g. , Will , 389 U.S. at 95, 104–06, 88 S.Ct. 269 ; Schlagenhauf v. Holder , 379 U.S. 104, 110–12, 85 S.Ct. 234, 13 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964) ; La Buy , 352 U.S. at 257–60, 77 S.Ct. 309. Unlike the dissent, see dissent at 674 n.5, the S......
  • Attorney General of U.S., In re, Nos. 239
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • March 19, 1979
    ...Court has interpreted the standard for issuance of the writ more liberally in some cases than in others. Compare Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 85 S.Ct. 234, 13 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964), and LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 258-60, 77 S.Ct. 309, 1 L.Ed.2d 290 (1957), With Will v. ......
  • National Super Spuds, Inc. v. New York Mercantile Exchange, Nos. 343
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • January 17, 1979
    ...Ltd. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 380 F.2d 277, 282-83 (2 Cir. 1967), also a discovery case, on the basis of Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 85 S.Ct. 234, 13 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964). These were "usurpation of power, clear abuse of discretion, and the presence of an issue of first impression."......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1026 cases
  • Pope v. United States, No. 18272.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • March 14, 1967
    ...4 vote, Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U.S. 1, 61 S.Ct. 422, 89 L.Ed. 479 (1941), and against constitutional attack, Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 114, 85 S.Ct. 234, 13 L.Ed.2d 152 372 F.2d 720 We recognize, too, as the defense also urges, that it has been held that: 1. A defendant's ......
  • United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, No. 13-50561
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • May 31, 2017
    ...of persons who aren't parties to the mandamus petition. See, e.g. , Will , 389 U.S. at 95, 104–06, 88 S.Ct. 269 ; Schlagenhauf v. Holder , 379 U.S. 104, 110–12, 85 S.Ct. 234, 13 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964) ; La Buy , 352 U.S. at 257–60, 77 S.Ct. 309. Unlike the dissent, see dissent at 674 n.5, the S......
  • Attorney General of U.S., In re, Nos. 239
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • March 19, 1979
    ...Court has interpreted the standard for issuance of the writ more liberally in some cases than in others. Compare Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 85 S.Ct. 234, 13 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964), and LaBuy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 258-60, 77 S.Ct. 309, 1 L.Ed.2d 290 (1957), With Will v. ......
  • National Super Spuds, Inc. v. New York Mercantile Exchange, Nos. 343
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • January 17, 1979
    ...Ltd. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 380 F.2d 277, 282-83 (2 Cir. 1967), also a discovery case, on the basis of Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 85 S.Ct. 234, 13 L.Ed.2d 152 (1964). These were "usurpation of power, clear abuse of discretion, and the presence of an issue of first impression."......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • The Law of District Court Stays for USPTO Proceedings
    • United States
    • Landslide Nbr. 14-1, September 2021
    • September 1, 2021
    ...LLC v. Advance Am. Cash Advance Ctrs. Inc., 767 F.3d 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2014); VirtualAgility , 759 F.3d at 1308. 12. Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 110 (1964) (citing Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259–60 (1947)). 13. Id. (quoting Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 383 (1......
  • Behind the Scenes of the Trademark Modernization Act: An Interview with Stephen Lee
    • United States
    • Landslide Nbr. 14-1, September 2021
    • September 1, 2021
    ...LLC v. Advance Am. Cash Advance Ctrs. Inc., 767 F.3d 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2014); VirtualAgility , 759 F.3d at 1308. 12. Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 110 (1964) (citing Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259–60 (1947)). 13. Id. (quoting Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 383 (1......
  • She’s Crazy (to Think We’ll Believe Her): Credibility Discounting of Women With Mental Illness in the Era of #metoo
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law Nbr. XXII-1, October 2020
    • October 1, 2020
    ...149. Lyles v. District of Columbia, 17 F. Supp. 3d 59, 69 (D.D.C. 2014) (internal citation omitted). 150. See Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 118 (1964) (establishing that the requirements of Federal Rule 35 are “not a mere formality”); see also Flack v. Nutribullet, L.L.C., 333 F.R.D......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT