Legal Opinion

Nelson v. Toledo Oxygen & Equipment Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1992No. Nos. 90-2182 and 90-2184PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.

Upon review, we conclude that an order compelling the discovery of alleged work-product materials is not a final appealable order under R.C. 2505.02.

Appellant Nelson contends that such an order is appealable under R.C. 2505.02 because it “affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding.” We agree that the qualified work-product exemption set forth in Civ.R. 26(B)(3) constitutes a “substantial right.” Civ.R. 26(B)(3) generally provides that trial-preparation materials are exempt from discovery unless “good cause” is shown for their production. The justification for this exemption was…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Hickman v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
  2. Cobbledick v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
  3. State v. ThomasOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  4. American Express Warehousing, Ltd. v. Transamerica Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967
  5. Amato v. General Motors Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1981

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Bell v. Mt. Sinai Medical CenterOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Polikoff v. AdamOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  3. Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
  4. State ex rel. Abner v. ElliottOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Arnold v. American National Red CrossOhio Court of Appeals · 1994

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API