State ex rel. McKim v. Hobart Corp.
568 N.E.2d 670, 58 Ohio St. 3d 99, 1991 Ohio LEXIS 619
Opinion
Appellant seeks a writ of mandamus from what is essentially an interlocutory discovery order. Mandamus, however, does not lie from such orders. State, ex rel. Sobczak, v. Skow (1990), 49 Ohio St. 3d 13, 550 N.E. 2d 455.
For the reason stated above, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State ex rel. McKim v. Hobart Corp., 568 N.E.2d 670, 58 Ohio St. 3d 99, 1991 Ohio LEXIS 619 (Ohio 1991).
568 N.E.2d 670 (State ex rel. McKim v. Hobart Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State ex rel. Kmart Corp. (K-Mart) v. Frantom
1999 Ohio 180 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)
State ex rel. Kmart Corp. v. Frantom
715 N.E.2d 545 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1999)