We’ve had conversations with judges, but for this installment, I will be discussing appellate strategy with Michael Hendershot, Deputy Solicitor General at the Ohio Solicitor General’s Office. Michael has served as a law clerk for on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, a law clerk for an Ohio Supreme Court Justice, an attorney in private practice, and since 2008, with the Solicitor General’s office, where he has briefed and argued more than 30 appeals at the Ohio Supreme Court.Continue Reading Thinking about appellate strategy with Michael Hendershot, Ohio Solicitor General’s Office
U.S. Supreme Court agrees to resolve Dupree circuit split
Imagine that your client has been sued for damages in federal court. In a motion for summary judgment, you assert what you believe to be a valid and compelling legal defense, such as the plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. There are no facts in dispute regarding the defense—it presents a purely legal question for the judge to resolve before any trial takes place. Yet the judge denies your dispositive motion, and so you proceed to a jury trial, where your client is hit with a substantial verdict. As you consider post-trial motions, you may wonder: must you re-brief the purely legal defense in a Rule 50 motion — even though the judge previously denied it on summary judgment — in order to preserve that issue for appeal?Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court agrees to resolve <em>Dupree </em>circuit split
Changing rules to eliminate consent requirements for amicus briefs – how far will they go?
In mid-December 2022, Larry Ebner, the well-known appellate advocate behind Capital Appellate Advocacy in Washington, D.C., published an op-ed at Law360 titled Federal Courts Should Follow Supreme Court’s Amicus Stance. In this op-ed, Ebner noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had announced revisions to its rules, effective Jan. 1, 2023, that eliminate the requirement for amici curiae to obtain the parties’ consent, or the court’s permission, to file their amicus briefs. Ebner went on to argue that the corresponding rules for the federal circuit courts (see FRAP 29) should similarly be amended to eliminate the consent requirement for amicus briefs.Continue Reading Changing rules to eliminate consent requirements for amicus briefs – how far will they go?
The tricky business of appealing from decisions granting preliminary injunctive relief
Members of our firm’s Appellate Practice Group are consulted regularly by our colleagues about procedural issues arising from so-called interlocutory appeals. In other words, appeals taken (or attempted to be taken) from decisions by trial courts at some point before final judgment.Continue Reading The tricky business of appealing from decisions granting preliminary injunctive relief
Appellate practitioners take note: Ohio Supreme Court has rejected mandatory deference to agencies’ interpretations of rules and statutes
As many readers of this blog likely will be aware, the doctrine of administrative deference — the extent to which courts may properly defer to agencies’ interpretations of statutes and/or rules — has been a hot topic in recent years in the United States Supreme Court.Continue Reading Appellate practitioners take note: Ohio Supreme Court has rejected mandatory deference to agencies’ interpretations of rules and statutes
Ohio Supreme Court reminder: Strict rules compliance required for page limits and attachments
It happens a few times a year – an entry in the Ohio Supreme Court’s daily announcements reads like this: Continue Reading Ohio Supreme Court reminder: Strict rules compliance required for page limits and attachments
Don’t forget about AAA’s Optional Appellate Arbitration Rules
Not long ago, one of the American Arbitration Association’s vice presidents stopped by our firm to bring us up to speed on some recent AAA developments and the new AAA rules in effect for commercial cases, effective Sept. 1, 2022. We at Ohio Appellate Insights think one of the topics she mentioned during her presentation — “AAA’s Optional Appellate Arbitration Rules” — is worth noting for our audience of appellate practitioners. Continue Reading Don’t forget about AAA’s Optional Appellate Arbitration Rules
Ohio Supreme Court allows recovery of appellate attorney fees by prevailing parties who obtain punitive-damage awards and successfully defend judgments on appeal
As we noted last week, this time of year brings eventful decision days at the Ohio Supreme Court. And Wednesday, Oct. 12, continued the trend with the Supreme Court’s decision allowing recovery of appellate attorney fees by prevailing parties who obtain and successfully defend punitive-damage awards in Cruz v. English Nanny & Governess School. Continue Reading Ohio Supreme Court allows recovery of appellate attorney fees by prevailing parties who obtain punitive-damage awards and successfully defend judgments on appeal
An eventful day at the Ohio Supreme Court
As we approach the end of an election year that includes multiple Ohio Supreme Court races, we know that the Justices of the Ohio Supreme Court and their law clerks are hard at work drafting opinions in all cases that have already been orally argued. This diligence is so that the court’s opinions in those cases can be voted on and released before the election may cause changes to the bench in January. We can expect several eventful days between now and the end of the year, when a flurry of consequential new opinions in pending cases surely will be issued.
Tuesday, October 11, was one of those eventful days.
A pain worse than losing (Part 3): A jurisdictional defect
We’ve written before about the heartfelt pain appellate lawyers experience when a case is dismissed after briefing and oral argument at the Ohio Supreme Court. In the first instance, it happened for a lack of a final appealable order. In the second, the court ultimately decided the case had already been mooted. It turns out there’s a third possibility — a jurisdictional defect.
Continue Reading A pain worse than losing (Part 3): A jurisdictional defect