Case ID: ohio-st-3d_58/html/0099-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State, ex rel. McKim, Appellant, v. Hobart Corporation et al., Appellees.
    [Cite as State, ex rel. McKim, v. Hobart Corp. (1991), 58 Ohio St. 3d 99.]
    (No. 90-67
    Submitted November 27, 1990
    Decided March 20, 1991.)
    
      
      Michael J. Muldoon, for appellant.
    
      Thompson, Hiñe & Flory, Theodore E. Laszlo and Michelle La-Fond Potter, for appellee Hobart Corporation.
    
      Lee I. Fisher, attorney general, and Peter E. DeMarco, for appellee Industrial Commission.
   Per Curiam.

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.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Douglas, Wright, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.