Legal Opinion
Ewin v. Burnham
Michigan Court of Appeals
Decided December 27, 2006No. Docket 259180PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Fer CURIAM.
Respondent appeals as of right the November 1,2004, order of the trial court, which denied his motion to quash a subpoena and mandated his appearance for a deposition. We affirm.
Respondent received a subpoena to appear for a deposition in Michigan regarding matters stemming from a presuit discovery proceeding pending in Tarrant County, Texas. Respondent moved to have the subpoena quashed. When his motion was denied, he immediately moved for a stay of his deposition pending appeal. Respondent also filed an appeal from the order denying his motion to quash. When his motion for a stay…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Bailey v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Robinson v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
- Sun Valley Foods Co. v. WardMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
- Neal v. WilkesMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
- Putkamer v. Transamerica Insurance Corp. of AmericaMichigan Supreme Court · 1997
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Doe v. Department of CorrectionsMichigan Court of Appeals · 2015
- In Re Robert W Ashcraft TrustMichigan Court of Appeals · 2026
- John Doe 1 v. Department of CorrectionsMichigan Court of Appeals · 2015
- John Doe 1 v. Department of CorrectionsMichigan Court of Appeals · 2015
- People v. JohnsonMichigan Supreme Court · 2007