Legal Opinion

Vaughan v. Broadfoot

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided July 6, 1966No. 196PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSharp, J.

This appeal presents only the question whether the trial judge erred in quashing the subpoena duces tecum. To answer it, we must consider the history and purpose of this process.

The subpoena duces tecum, an ancient writ well known to the common law, is the process by which a court requires the production at the trial of documents, papers, or chattels material to the issue. 8 Wigmore, Evidence § 2200 (McNaughton rev. 1961); 58 Am. Jur., Witnesses § 20 (1948); Annot., Subpoena Duces Tecum, 128 Am. St. Rep. 755 (1909). See Carter v. Graves, 12 N.C. 74. A court in which an action is pending has…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Star Manufacturing Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  2. American Car & Foundry Co. v. Alexandria Water Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
  3. Bailey v. . MatthewsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
  4. Southern Pacific Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1940
  5. Thormer v. LEXINGTON MAIL ORDER COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Quick v. QuickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  2. Willis v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  3. State v. BurrSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1995
  4. Ward v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  5. In Re Special Investigation No. 244Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1983

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

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

Powered by the Exa API