Opinion ID: 2543380
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Mid-Trial Appellate Controversy

Text: ¶ 8 In launching her defense below Dr. Lashley had perceived herself impeded in the discovery of testimony and records relating to her treatment of the girls and in her access to certain medical information about the girls' mental health, which are now under control of other physicians. She sought a writ (of mandamus) to compel the trial judge to aid her in these efforts. [13] By its January 16, 2001 order this court took original cognizance of the mandamus case and stayed all further proceedings here until the trial court had decided whether Myers had an actionable claim and if so, whether Dr. Lashley would be impeded by legal barriers in pressing her chosen defense theories. [14] Because the reason for the writ stood removed by the summary judgment later entered below in Dr. Lashley's favor, the original proceeding was eventually terminated for mootness.