State Ex Rel, Tune v. Falkenhainer
Supreme Court of Missouri
Prohibition.. (1) The judges of-the circuit court exceeded their jurisdiction in issuing a subpoena duces tecum requiring the production in evidence of the letter written to the Complaint Board in a trial of a libel suit pending in the circuit court and in threatening to enforce that part of the subpoena duces tecum requiring the production in evidence of said letter after the St. Louis Court of Appeals had held that said letter was a privileged communication under the law…
Read the full summary
Prohibition.. (1) The judges of-the circuit court exceeded their jurisdiction in issuing a subpoena duces tecum requiring the production in evidence of the letter written to the Complaint Board in a trial of a libel suit pending in the circuit court and in threatening to enforce that part of the subpoena duces tecum requiring the production in evidence of said letter after the St. Louis Court of Appeals had held that said letter was a privileged communication under the law of evidence. State ex rel. Douglas v. Tune, 199 Mo. App. 404. (2) It was the duty of the judges of the circuit court to…
1Opinion of the CourtHigbee, J.
This is an original proceeding for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the respondents, judges of the Circuit Court of the City of - St. Louis, from enforcing a subpoena duces tecum requiring Marsh to pro‘duce a letter addressed to the Complaint Board on the ground of privilege.
Statement. The Charter of the City of St. Louis provides that the Compaint Board shall receive “ complaints against any department, board, division, officer, or employee of the city, or against any public utility corporation, and examine the same. It shall recommend to the ., , , ., ... .. proper city or State…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- State ex inf. Hadley v. Standard Oil Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Diener v. Star-Chronicle Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1910
- Tilles v. Pulitzer Publishing Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1912
- Connellee v. BlantonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1913
- Marks v. BakerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Wilfong v. SCHAEPER-KOETTERSupreme Court of Missouri · 1996
- State Ex Rel. St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. SartoriusSupreme Court of Missouri · 1943
- State Ex Rel. Rowland Group, Inc. v. KoehrSupreme Court of Missouri · 1992