Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State ex rel. Ohio Democratic Party v. Blackwell

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 11, 2006No. 2006-1678Published

1ConcurrenceAlice Robie Resnick, J.

{¶ 13} For the reasons stated in the majority opinion, I concur that relator’s petition for a commission to take out-of-state depositions should be denied. However, I believe that the purpose behind relator’s petition may be to have this court appoint a person before whom the depositions could be taken. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.300(a) (“Depositions may be taken * * * by any person appointed by the court in which the action is pending”). If that is the intent of relator’s petition, it may be possible that a newly filed request on that basis would be granted by this court.

{¶ 14} I also take this…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Common Cause/Ohio v. Ohio Elections CommissionOhio Court of Appeals · 2002
  2. Ohio Elections Commission v. Ohio Chamber of CommerceOhio Court of Appeals · 2004
  3. State Ex Rel. C. C./ohio A. v. Ohio E.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2004
  4. State ex rel. Common Cause v. Ohio Elections CommissionOhio Court of Appeals · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API