Ohio Administrative Code|Rule 3746-7-04 | Attendance of witnesses and production of documents at hearing.

                                                

(A) For the purpose of conducting a de novo hearing, or where the commission has granted a request for the admission of additional evidence, the commission may on its own motion require the attendance of witnesses and the production of written or printed materials.

(B) A party may move the commission for the issuance of a subpoena to require the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents at the de novo hearing. Except in extraordinary circumstances and upon leave of the commission, such a motion shall be made at least seven business days prior to the scheduled hearing date. Subpoenas requested for the attendance of witnesses or production of records at the de novo hearing shall be issued by the commission pursuant to section 3745.05 of the Revised Code.

(C) A witness at any hearing shall testify under oath or affirmation, which any member of the commission may administer. Upon request, a witness shall be permitted to be accompanied, represented, and advised by an attorney, whose participation in the hearing shall be limited to the protection of the rights of the witness.

(D) The refusal of a witness at a hearing before the commission to answer any question which has been ruled proper shall, in the discretion of the commission, be grounds for:

(1) Striking all testimony given by the witness on related matters; or

(2) Instituting contempt proceedings in the court of common pleas.

(E) The commission may, on its own motion or on the motion of any party, provide for the separation of witnesses during the hearing.

(F) At the discretion of the commission, sworn testimony may be submitted in support of any relevant fact or in lieu of live testimony.

View Latest Documents

preview-icon 28 pages

F-70881 RJC/cad « ' IN,THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS . ‘“MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Plaintiff -vs- Kimberly Smith, aka Kimberly L. Smith, et al. Defendant -and- General Motors Acceptance Corp. 500 Enterprise Road Suite 150 Horsham, PA 19044 New Party Defendant. ee , CASE NO. 05-0611 JUDGE DAVID A. GOWDOWN SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR FORECLOSURE AND Notice Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices ActFIRST COUNT 1. Plaintiff says that…

Case Filed

Jan 26, 2005

Case Status

CLOSED

County

Montgomery County, OH

Filed Date

Mar 15, 2006

Category

MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE

preview-icon 38 pages

D9374 - P48 3 2 . Ba BEFORE THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS . & g ze FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO o a oe nm 4 Ben . 2 . ore 22 AEP, OHIO, et al., : SB 23 © Case No. 09-CVH-09-14494 aA a BE Plaintiffs, : & S83 °24 and : < Judge Sheeran * BUCKEYE POWER CO., et al., Intervenor Plaintiffs, and ARCELORMITTAL CLEVELAND, INC., et al., : INTERVENOR PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF IN : SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT FOR Intervenor Plaintiffs, : DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTIVE v : RELIEF AND OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF : STATE OF OHIO…

Case Name 09 CV 014494
Case Filed

Oct 05, 2009

County

Franklin County, OH

Filed Date

Oct 07, 2009

Judge Hon. Jeffrey M. Brown Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for Jeffrey M. Brown
preview-icon 66 pages

D9268 - R52 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FRANKLIN COUNTY, OINO CARLOS SALMONS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, + Case No. 08 CVC 10 14939 Judge Bessey 2 PALLITHANAM LLC, ET AL., 2 m 3 a o ®@ 7 oO Defendants. 2 = - = i e 6 OZ DEFENDANTS WAL-MART STORES, INC, AND_ WAL-MART ST! EAST_LP.’S REPLY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT S| AQ 1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Plainuffs’ have failed to set forth any admissible evidence that Wal-Mart either created. had actual knowledge or constructive notice …

Case Filed

Oct 17, 2008

Case Status

CLOSED

County

Franklin County, OH

Filed Date

Aug 13, 2009

Judge Hon. KIM J BROWN Trellis Spinner 👉 Discover key insights by exploring more analytics for KIM J BROWN
View More Documents

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope