State ex rel. Thomson v. Doneghy
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in its opinion. State ex rel. Pennington v. Gundler (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 171, 661 N.E.2d 1049 (respondent’s production of records renders moot claim for mandamus to compel such production). Further, Thomson had an adequate remedy to contend that he was entitled to an additional thirty days to perfect his appeal from Judge Doneghy’s judgment by his pending appeal from that judgment. Cf. Atkinson v. Grumman Ohio Corp. (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 80, 523 N.E.2d 851.
Judgment affirmed.
*223Moyer, C.J., Douglas, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Atkinson v. Grumman Ohio Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1988
- State ex rel. Pennington v. GundlerOhio Supreme Court · 1996
3Cited by10 opinions
- State ex rel. Smith v. FuerstOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- State ex rel. Warren v. WarnerOhio Supreme Court · 1999
- State ex rel. District 1199, Health Care & Social Service Union v. Lawrence County General HospitalOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- State ex rel. Dist. 1199, Health Care & Social Serv. Union, SEIU, AFL-CIO v. Lawrence Cty. Gen. Hosp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1998
- State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Board of Hancock County CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 1998
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.