Meredith v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 26 January 1968 |
| Citation | 423 S.W.2d 519 |
| Parties | William R. MEREDITH, II, et al., Petitioners, v. Honorable Gilbert M. WILSON, Judge, Mercer Circuit Court, Respondent. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
James F. Clay, Jr., Clay & Clay, Danville, for petitioners.
DAVIS, Commissioner.
In this original action the petitioners seek an order directing the respondent, as Judge of the Mercer Circuit Court, to permit petitioners, who are plaintiffs in an action presently pending in the Mercer Circuit Court, to take certain discovery depositions. Other ancillary relief is sought, but we deem that the prime prayer of the present petition relates to the discovery depositions.
It appears that the present petitioners instituted an action in the Boyle Circuit Court, which is also in the 13th Judicial District over which the present respondent presides as circuit judge. KRS 23.040(13). The action in the Boyle Circuit Court was dismissed for lack of proper venue. The propriety of the order dismissing the action in the Boyle Circuit Court is being tested in an appeal presently pending in this court.
The present petitioners have filed an action in the Mercer Circuit Court in which the parties, plaintiffs and defendant, are identical to those in the action in the Boyle Circuit Court, and the precise relief which was sought in the Boyle County action is sought in the Mercer County action. It appears that the order dismissing the action in the Boyle Circuit Court was entered August 31, 1967, and supplemented on September 8, 1967. The complaint of the present petitioners was filed in the Mercer Circuit Court on October 7, 1967. The defendant in the Mercer County action, without filing a responsive pleading to the merits of the complaint, moved that the time for filing be enlarged until twenty days after the mandate shall have been issued in the pending appeal in the Boyle County action. That motion was sustained, whereupon counsel for the present petitioners served notice for the taking of the discovery depositions of the defendant and another person. The defendant in the Mercer County suit then moved the court to enlarge its previous order, suspending the time for filing answer so as to prohibit the taking of the depositions on discovery and to quash a subpoena duces tecum issued incident to discovery depositions.
The respondent judge entered an order prohibiting the taking of the depositions and substantially suspending any proceedings in the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Ferrari (Ex parte Ferrari)
...Rule 27, Ind. R. Trial P.); Wiles v. Myerly, 210 N.W.2d 619 (Iowa 1973) (discussing Rule 1.721 –1.729, Iowa R. Civ. P.); Meredith v. Wilson, 423 S.W.2d 519 (Ky.1968) (discussing Rule 27.01 –.03, Ky. R. Civ. P.); In re Vermilion Parish Sch. Bd., 357 So.2d 1295 (La.Ct.App.1978) (discussing La......
-
Johnson v. Wood
...genuine exigency [that] might well call into question the adequacy of an appeal." Inverultra , 449 S.W.3d at 346 (citing Meredith v. Wilson , 423 S.W.2d 519 (Ky. 1968) ; Texaco, Inc. v. Borda , 383 F.2d 607, 609 (3rd Cir. 1967) ). Johnson has made no such showing in this case. Further, the ......
-
Commonwealth v. Wingate
...recently explained in Inverultra, S.A. v. Wilson, 449 S.W.3d 339, 345–47 (Ky.2014), Volvo and Rehm both purport to rely on Meredith v. Wilson, 423 S.W.2d 519 (Ky.1968), a case in which our predecessor Court granted mandamus and reversed a discovery stay. The analysis in Meredith, however, w......
-
Inverultra, S.A. v. Wilson
...denials was not well-founded and that in any event those cases are distinguishable.Volvo and Rehm both purport to rely on Meredith v. Wilson, 423 S.W.2d 519 (Ky.1968), another case in which the Court granted mandamus and reversed a discovery stay. The Court did so in Meredith, however, not ......