Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Bailey

Ohio Supreme Court

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Bailey

785 N.E.2d 480, 98 Ohio St. 3d 1499

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 21, 2003

Docket1999-0157

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 785 N.E.2d 480 (Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Bailey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cincinnati Bar Ass'n v. Bailey, 785 N.E.2d 480, 98 Ohio St. 3d 1499 (Ohio 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

On January 22, 1999, movant, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a motion for order to show cause why respondent should not be held in contempt of court for not complying with a subpoena duces tecum. On September 20, 2000, this court found respondent in contempt, sanctioned him in the amount of $500 due 30 days from the date of the order, and ordered respondent to compensate movant for its costs. On June 26, 2001, this court entered judgment in the amount of $375 against respondent and ordered him to reimburse movant within 30 days of the order. On December 18, 2002, movant filed notice that respondent had not complied with the court’s June 26, 2001 order. On January 23, 2003, this court ordered respondent to show cause why he should not be found in contempt for failure to comply. Respondent filed a response to the show cause order and a request for oral hearing and jury trial. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that respondent appear in person before this court on April 16, 2003, at 9:00 a.m. It is further ordered that the request for oral hearing and jury trial be, and hereby is, denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1).

Pfeifer, J., dissents and would find respondent in contempt.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

On January 22, 1999, movant, Cincinnati Bar Association, filed a motion for order to show cause why respondent should not be held in contempt of court for not complying with a subpoena duces tecum. On September 20, 2000, this court found respondent in contempt, sanctioned him in the amount of $500 due 30 days from the date of the order, and ordered respondent to compensate movant for its costs. On June 26, 2001, this court entered judgment in the amount of $375 against respondent and ordered him to reimburse movant within 30 days of the order. On December 18, 2002, movant filed notice that respondent had not complied with the court’s June 26, 2001 order. On January 23, 2003, this court ordered respondent to show cause why he should not be found in contempt for failure to comply. Respondent filed a response to the show cause order and a request for oral hearing and jury trial. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, sua sponte, that respondent appear in person before this court on April 16, 2003, at 9:00 a.m. It is further ordered that the request for oral hearing and jury trial be, and hereby is, denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this court issue certified copies of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(8)(D)(1).

Pfeifer, J., dissents and would find respondent in contempt.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

785 N.E.2d 480, 98 Ohio St. 3d 1499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cincinnati-bar-assn-v-bailey-ohio-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack