Inhofe v. Wiseman
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Opinion of the Court
KAUGER, Justice.
In this case of first impression, the petitioner, James M. Inhofe, urges us to assume original jurisdiction and to issue a writ of prohibition to prevent his deposition from being taken by videotape. In the alternative, he seeks a writ of mandamus requiring the trial court to issue a protective order limiting dissemination of the deposition. The dispositive issues are whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion to take the petitioner’s deposition by video or by its refusal to issue a protective order. We find that the trial court did not abuse its…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Seattle Times Co. v. RhinehartSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Gannett Co. v. DePasqualeSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- In Re San Juan Star Company, Pedro Juan Soto v. Carlos Romero Barcelo, in Re Pedro Juan Soto, Pedro Juan Soto v. Carlos Romero Barcelo, Miguel Hernandez Agosto, IntervenorCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1981
- Rhinehart v. Seattle Times Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1982
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- Heffron v. District Court of Oklahoma CountySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2003
- CREST INFINITI, II, LP v. SwintonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2007
- Kelley v. KelleySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 2007
- Lepak v. McClainSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1992
- Dougherty, J., Aplt. v. Heller, K.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.