Legal Opinion

In re Subpoena Duces Tecum Served Upon Attorney Potts

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 2003No. 2002-0953PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.

(¶ 1} Appellant, attorney John F. Potts, appeals from the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s order for an in-camera review of subpoenaed documents. For the following reasons, we (1) reverse the judgment of the court of appeals in part and hold that a trial court, in responding to a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum seeking the production of documents before trial, must first conduct an evidentiary hearing, which may be held in camera, in order that the proponent of the subpoena can demonstrate why the subpoena is not unreasonable or…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. NixonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. Bowman Dairy Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
  3. State v. GeisOhio Court of Appeals · 1981

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Miamisburg v. RinderleOhio Court of Appeals · 2015
  2. Pales v. Fedor, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County2018
  3. State v. JohnsonOhio Court of Appeals · 2016
  4. McDade v. MorrisOhio Court of Appeals · 2015
  5. State v. KelleyOhio Court of Appeals · 2024

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API