# State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson

> Ohio Supreme Court · September 7, 1994 · 70 Ohio St. 3d 420

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6770311

## Case

- **Full name:** The State ex rel. Steckman v. Jackson, Chief, Appellant The State ex rel. Larkins v. Kovacic, Chief, Appellee The State of Ohio v. Amato
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 7, 1994
- **Citations:** 70 Ohio St. 3d 420; 639 N.E.2d 83; 1994 Ohio LEXIS 1872
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wright
- **Judges:** Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright
- **Cited by:** 308 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by State ex rel. Caster v. Columbus (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 8394 (2016).
- Negative treatments: 2
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6770311

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- reversing prior interpretation of state records law that allowed criminal defendants to use records law to obtain discovery in addition to that provided by criminal procedure rules, because prior practice brought about "interminable delay" and "chaos" in criminal trials and st…
- observing that interlocutory orders are neither final nor appealable but recognizing that “[a]n exception to this rule is the state’s right to appeal ‘by leave of the court to which the appeal is taken any other decision, except the final verdict, of the trial court in a crimi…
- noting that a prior decision’s analysis of CLEIR exception for specific investigatory work product was “without citation to any authority except [State ex rel.] Beacon Journal [Publishing Co. v. Univ. of Akron],” which “did not deal with the specific work product exception” [e…
- holding that "[d]iscovery orders are interlocutory and, as such, are neither final nor appealable"
- noting that the term “proceeding,” used in R.C. 149.43(A)(1), is defined in Black’s to mean the steps in an action from commencement to final judgment

## Opinion text

Wright, J.,
dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I think we have taken a substantial step back from State ex rel. Natl. Broadcasting Co. v. Cleveland (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 79 , 526 N.E.2d 786 , and its progeny. Further, I feel State ex rel. Scanlon v. Deters (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 376 , 544 N.E.2d 680 , and State ex rel. Clark v. Toledo (1990), 54 Ohio St.3d 55 , 560 N.E.2d 1313 , were just decisions and most certainly not to be rejected by this court.
A.W. Sweeney, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6770311. Public record. Not legal advice.