
    The State, ex rel. Lippitt et al., Appellants, v. Edgecomb, Clerk, Appellee.
    (No. 76-468
    Decided December 27, 1976.)
    
      Messrs. Cain & Loto and Mr. Robert Bruce Henn, for appellants.
    
      Mr. Steven J. Schwartz, deputy law director, .for ap-pellee.
   Per Curiam.

The main issue in this canse is whether the Court pf Appeals correctly denied the writ of mandamus as to the temporary docket.

"The Court of Appeals’ denial of the writ was based on its conclusion that the evidence as to the “nature and content of the ‘temporary docket’ ” was too “inconclusive” to determine ,whether the temporary docket, was ,a public record.

When the challenge to a decision denying, a writ of mandamus is based on questions of evidence, “ * * it is the established practice of the Supreme Court, to, refuse to weigh the evidence to determine * * * whether correct conclusions.'as, to the. facts were reached by the court below.’ ”State, ex rel. Pomeroy, v. Webber (1965), 2 Ohio St. 2d 84, 86. Relators’ appeal is based upon such a question of evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment- of: the Court of Appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

' CorRigan, Celebrezze, W. Brown and, R. Brown, JJ., concur.

.Herbert,. J., concurs in the judgment.'.

O’Neill, Ó. J., and Stern, J., dissent.

Stern, J.,

’dissenting. I am of the view that under the authority of R. C. 149.40 and 149.43, and. this court’s, decision in Dayton Newspapers v. Dayton (1976), 45 Ohio St. 2d 107, the temporary docket is a public record, and hence must he made available for public inspection at all reasonable times.

I would reverse the Court.of Appeals.

O’Neill, C. J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion. . . 
      
      Relators assert that “it is obvious from the stipulations: cited” thát the^ temporary docket is a public-record.
     