Legal Opinion
Harris v. Stutzman
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided April 5, 1989No. 87-2182PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtH. Brown, J.
The issue presented is, for us, one of first impression: In an investigation undertaken by the Director of Industrial Relations pursuant to the prevailing wage laws, does R.C. 4115.132 authorize a designated representative of the director to issue a subpoena duces tecum to a person, contractor or subcontractor to produce records in any county within the state? We answer the query affirmatively and reverse the decision of the court of appeals.
An administrative agency charged with regulating and enforcing compliance with certain laws must be able to discover evidence in order to determine…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- United States v. Morton Salt Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. WallingSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- State v. Buckeye Electric Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
3Cited by4 opinions
- State ex rel. Fisher v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- Petro v. North Coast Villas Ltd.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2000
- Oriana House, Inc. v. MontgomeryOhio Supreme Court · 2006
- Ohio Asphalt Paving, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Industrial RelationsOhio Supreme Court · 1992