Court Opinion

ID: 9444768
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:11:12.424045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:59.728674
License: Public Domain

*83POPE, Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result).
My views of this case are in accord with those expressed by Judge Boldt in his concurring opinion.
I too think that it is unwise to predicate any conclusions in this case upon the assumption that the Supreme Court would now approve the rationale of Union Pacific Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 11 S.Ct. 1000, 35 L.Ed. 734.1 Implicit in Judge Boldt’s opinion is the view, with which I agree, that no unfavorable inference should be drawn from the past refusals of Fong Sik Leung to submit to blood tests or to produce such evidence willingly or of his own motion.2 He had the right to test the court’s order as he has done here. As Judge Boldt has said the question of appropriate inferences based on future happenings is not now before us.

. See Wigmore on Evidence, 3d ed., § 2220, Vol. VIII, pp. 190-191.

. Wigmore on Evidence, § 285, Vol. II, p. 162.