State ex rel. McKim v. Hobart Corp.
568 N.E.2d 670, 58 Ohio St. 3d 99, 1991 Ohio LEXIS 619
This text of 568 N.E.2d 670 (State ex rel. McKim v. Hobart Corp.) 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
State ex rel. McKim v. Hobart Corp., 568 N.E.2d 670, 58 Ohio St. 3d 99, 1991 Ohio LEXIS 619 (Ohio 1991).
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
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)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
568 N.E.2d 670, 58 Ohio St. 3d 99, 1991 Ohio LEXIS 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-mckim-v-hobart-corp-ohio-1991.