Legal Opinion

Ex Parte Thayer

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 16, 1926No. 19186PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.

As the record shows, the superior court ordered Thayer to file the deposition, both in the original personal injury action, which had been dismissed at the date of the order, and in the second personal injury action, which was pending at the date of the order.

Generally speaking, depositions must be filed or recorded in the court to which they are returnable, and, if they are improperly retained, the party having them in possession may be compelled to produce, file, or record them. Carr v. Adams, 70 N. H., 622, 45 A., 1084; Bennett v. Williams, 57 Pa., 404; Johnston v. Penna. Rd. Co., 5 Wkly.…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Petty v. Hayden Bros.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1901
  2. Bennett v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1868
  3. Currier v. City of ToledoOhio Court of Appeals · 1918
  4. Summers v. City of LouisvilleCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1910
  5. Grant v. DavisIndiana Court of Appeals · 1892

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Einstein v. FriedmanCuyahoga County Common Pleas Court · 1963
  2. Schussheim v. SchussheimOhio Supreme Court · 2013
  3. Schussheim v. SchussheimOhio Supreme Court · 2013

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API