Legal Opinion · Dissent

Smith v. Chen

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 21, 2015No. 2013-2008Published

1DissentKennedy, J.

{¶ 11} Respectfully, I dissent. I agree with the majority that “[a] proceeding for discovery of privileged matter” is a “provisional remedy” within the meaning of R.C. 2505.02(A)(3). Majority opinion at ¶ 5. However, I dissent from the majority’s decision to vacate the judgment of the court of appeals on the basis that the trial court’s order was not final and appealable under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4).

*414{¶ 12} The issue that the majority seizes upon — a lack of a final, appealable order — to vacate the judgment of the court of appeals was not raised or briefed by the parties. In response to this…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, L.L.P. v. Givaudan Flavors Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Nester v. Lima Memorial HospitalOhio Court of Appeals · 2000
  3. Grove v. Northeast Ohio Nephrology Associates, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2005
  4. Legg v. Hallet, 07ap-170 (12-11-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007
  5. Whitt v. Erb LumberOhio Court of Appeals · 2004

5 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