Legal Opinion
Ohio State Board of Pharmacy v. Frantz
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided May 30, 1990No. 89-339PublishedCited by 150 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.
Defendants-appellants first contend that R.C. 119.09 requires the State Board of Pharmacy to issue subpoenas for depositions of witnesses when a party to an adjudication hearing requests a deposition.
The relevant portion of R.C. 119.09 provides:
“For the purpose of conducting any adjudication hearing required by sections 119.01 to 119.13 of the Revised Code, the agency may require the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, and papers as it desires, and it may take the depositions of witnesses residing within or without the state in the same manner as is…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Heckler v. Community Health Services of Crawford County, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Immigration & Naturalization Service v. MirandaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Scott v. Department of Commerce & Community AffairsIllinois Supreme Court · 1981
- Ackerman v. Tri-City Geriatric & Health Care, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
- State Ex Rel. Cartwright v. DunbarSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1980
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by150 opinions
- Portage County Board of Commissioners v. City of AkronOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- Doe v. Archdiocese of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- Pacher v. Invisible Fence of DaytonOhio Court of Appeals · 2003
- State Ex Rel. Stovall v. MeneleySupreme Court of Kansas · 2001
- Hortman v. City of MiamisburgOhio Supreme Court · 2006
145 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.