Legal Opinion
State ex rel. Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Gunn
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided March 17, 1976No. 75-541PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHerbert, J.
Appellant contends that a proceeding to enforce a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Civil Rights Commission, pursuant to B. C. 4112.04(B)(6), is governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure and, therefore, must be commenced by the filing of a complaint and issuance of summons.
B. C. 4112.04(B)(6) states:
“In case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena, the commission or person at whose request it was issued may petition for its enforcement in the Court of Common Pleas in the county in which the person to whom the subpoena was addressed resides, was served, or transacts business.”
The scope of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1941
- Cudahy Packing Co. v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1941
3Cited by16 opinions
- Price v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
- Tower City Properties v. Cuyahoga County Board of RevisionOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- Siegler v. BatdorffOhio Court of Appeals · 1979
- State ex rel. GMS Management Co. v. CallahanOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- Petro v. North Coast Villas Ltd.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2000
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.