In Re Shoup

94 N.E.2d 625, 154 Ohio St. 221, 154 Ohio St. (N.S.) 221, 43 Ohio Op. 5, 1950 Ohio LEXIS 413
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 25, 1950
Docket31743
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 94 N.E.2d 625 (In Re Shoup) 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
In Re Shoup, 94 N.E.2d 625, 154 Ohio St. 221, 154 Ohio St. (N.S.) 221, 43 Ohio Op. 5, 1950 Ohio LEXIS 413 (Ohio 1950).

Opinion

By the Court.

The petitioner, counsel for a public transportation system, a defendant in a pending neg *222 ligence action, seeks by a proceeding in habeas corpus in this court to be released from technical custody under a commitment by a notary public for failure to comply with a subpoena duces tecum in refusing to produce certain records for use in the taking of a deposition before such notary.

The records which the plaintiff in the negligence case seeks to have produced consist of slips of paper containing the names of witnesses procured by an employee of the transportation system after the accident which resulted in the negligence action. These records had been turned over to the system’s legal department, according to the custom of the system.

Such records are privileged and their production cannot be enforced by subpoena duces tecum. Ex parte Schoepf, 74 Ohio St., 1, paragraph three of the syllabus, 77 N. E., 276; In re Hyde, 149 Ohio St., 407. 79 N. E. (2d), 224; In re Keough, 151 Ohio St., 307, 85 N. E. (2d), 550.

Accordingly, the custody of the petitioner is unlawful, and he is, hereby, discharged therefrom.

Petitioner discharged.

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Taft and Faught, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Arnovitz v. Wozar
222 N.E.2d 660 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1964)
City of Dayton v. Smith
166 N.E.2d 256 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1959)
Oehler v. Dallas Railway & Terminal Co.
290 S.W.2d 945 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1956)
In re Tichy
161 Ohio St. (N.S.) 104 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1954)
Brookshire v. Pennsylvania R. Co.
14 F.R.D. 154 (N.D. Ohio, 1953)
In re Story
159 Ohio St. (N.S.) 144 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1953)
Humphries v. Pennsylvania R.
14 F.R.D. 177 (N.D. Ohio, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 N.E.2d 625, 154 Ohio St. 221, 154 Ohio St. (N.S.) 221, 43 Ohio Op. 5, 1950 Ohio LEXIS 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-shoup-ohio-1950.