Legal Opinion
In Re Martin, Jr.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided February 17, 1943No. 29257PublishedCited by 45 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
The conclusions herein reached being in conflict with some of the previous pronouncements of this court we shall proceed to re-examine the questions involved.
In this state a notary public, or a commissioner, has no inherent power to preside at the taking of depositions or to punish for contempt. The source of such authority must be found in the statutes.
Section 11530, General Code, provides:
“Depositions taken in and to be used in this state, must be taken by an officer or person whose authority is derived within the state; but, if for use elsewhere, they may be taken before a commissioner or…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Blease v. GarlingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Nelson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1906
- Harding v. American Glucose Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1899
- Rosseau v. . BleauNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Satterlee v. BlissCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by45 opinions
- State ex rel. Leslie v. Ohio Housing Finance AgencyOhio Supreme Court · 2005
- State v. TenchOhio Supreme Court · 2018
- Peyko v. FrederickOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- Waldmann v. WaldmannOhio Supreme Court · 1976
- Baskerville v. BaskervilleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.