Legal Opinion
CREST INFINITI, II, LP v. Swinton
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided October 17, 2007No. 104,884PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EDMONDSON, V.C.J.
T1 Petitioners seek extraordinary relief because the order of the trial court requires the attendance of Cecil Van Tuy] and Larry Van Tuy] for depositions via notice to petitioners' counsel, although the named individuals are not named parties. Cecil was no ticed to appear in Overland Park, Kansas, and Larry in Phoenix, Arizona. The notices are directed to the named petitioners and specify the named individuals to be deposed. This controversy involves first-impression issues involving procedures for compelling the attendance of corporate officials for deposition. We assume…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Darlene Thomas v. International Business MacHines a New York Corporation Doing Business in the State of OklahomaCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1995
- Susie J. Salter, as of the Estate of Salter, Rufus, Deceased v. The Upjohn Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979
- Christian v. GraySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003
- Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C., Inc. v. William H. Webster, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1986
- Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. GarciaTexas Supreme Court · 1995
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- State ex rel. Board of Regents ex rel. Campus Disciplinary Council v. LucasSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2013
- Powers v. DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTYSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2009
- Warren v. StanfieldSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2012
- Berryhill v. RhodesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2014
- Willis v. Sequoyah House, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 2008
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.