Stark Cty. Bar Ass'n v. Watterson

Ohio Supreme Court

Stark Cty. Bar Ass'n v. Watterson

787 N.E.2d 9, 98 Ohio St. 3d 1547

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 24, 2003

Docket2003-0329

StatusPublished

This text of 787 N.E.2d 9 (Stark Cty. Bar Ass'n v. Watterson) 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

Stark Cty. Bar Ass'n v. Watterson, 787 N.E.2d 9, 98 Ohio St. 3d 1547 (Ohio 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

On February 14, 2003, relator, Stark County Bar Association, filed a Motion for Order to Respondent to Appear and Show Cause Why He Should Not be Held in Contempt for Failure to Comply with a Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by this court that the motion be and is hereby granted to the extent that respondent show cause by filing a written response with the Clerk of this court on or before 20 days from the date of this order why respondent should not be held in contempt.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that all documents filed with this court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number, and timeliness of filings.

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

On February 14, 2003, relator, Stark County Bar Association, filed a Motion for Order to Respondent to Appear and Show Cause Why He Should Not be Held in Contempt for Failure to Comply with a Subpoena Duces Tecum Issued by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by this court that the motion be and is hereby granted to the extent that respondent show cause by filing a written response with the Clerk of this court on or before 20 days from the date of this order why respondent should not be held in contempt.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, sua sponte, that all documents filed with this court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number, and timeliness of filings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

787 N.E.2d 9, 98 Ohio St. 3d 1547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stark-cty-bar-assn-v-watterson-ohio-2003.