Legal Opinion
State v. Boysaw
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided June 23, 1987No. 10322, 10332 and 10339PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBrogan, J.
The instant action involves three separate cases which have been consolidated for our consideration. The issue involved in the consolidated appeal is set forth in appellant’s brief as follows:
“The court below erred as a matter of law upon overruling the motion to suppress the subpoena duces tecum and requiring Grandview Hospital & Medical Center to produce involuntarily the patient’s hospital record, without authorization for the reason that the privilege created by Ohio Revised Code Section 2317.02(B) requires the hospital to maintain the confidentiality of the patient’s chart…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Weis v. WeisOhio Supreme Court · 1947
- Schade v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1973
- State v. District Court of Iowa, in & for Linn CountySupreme Court of Iowa · 1974
- State v. DressOhio Court of Appeals · 1982
- State v. KavlichOhio Court of Appeals · 1986
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. SmorgalaOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. RoperNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1996
- State v. GonzalezOhio Court of Appeals · 2003
- City of Cleveland v. HaffeyCity of Cleveland Municipal Court · 1998