Court Opinion

ID: 9547950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:55:03.033949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:17.714047
License: Public Domain

DENECKE, J.,
specially concurring.
No issue was raised about the propriety of the use of mandamus to review the trial court’s orders. Nevertheless, a comment might be necessary because of our recent decisions in which the issue was raised and discussed. In Henkel v. Bradshaw, 257 Or 55, 475 P2d 75 (1970), and State ex rel Maizels v. Juba, 254 Or 823, 460 P2d 850 (1969), this court refused to issue a peremptory writ of mandamus upon the ground that appeal was a speedy and adequate remedy. In the instant case this is not true. If final judgment was entered for the defendant and the plaintiff appealed and assigned as error the trial court’s discovery orders, the trial court’s ruling, whether incorrect or not, probably would not be reversible. This court could not determine whether the trial court’s rulings, erroneous or not, were prejudicial to the plaintiff and, therefore, its rulings could not constitute reversible error. For this reason review by appeal after final judgment rather than by mandamus would not be adequate.