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
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
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.
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.
As previously posted, Ohio’s final appealable order statute, Ohio Revised Code Section 2505.02, is complex and fraught with traps for the unwary. It can be difficult for counsel to discern or advise their clients with any high degree of confidence whether a given interlocutory decision by a trial judge is subject to immediate appeal, or whether that fight must await an appeal after final judgment. Continue Reading Appealing discovery orders compelling production of confidential information
At Ohio Appellate Insights, we are happy to announce that Porter Wright has “acquired” the long-running and well-regarded blog, Legally Speaking Ohio. Legally Speaking Ohio was run by University of Cincinnati Professor Emerita (and former First District Court of Appeals Judge) Marianna Brown Bettman, who is retiring this summer. Professor Bettman announced the transition here.
In our last post, we discussed the pain of a dismissal after briefing and oral argument when the court determines the underlying judgment lacks a final appealable order. Less than three weeks later, the Supreme Court demonstrates another painful resolution — dismissing the appeal as moot and limiting the lower court’s decision as precedent only to the parties “inter se.” Continue Reading A pain worse than losing (Part 2): Appeal dismissed as moot
On March 16, 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in Rachel Davis v. Tammie Nathaniel, a case in which a biological aunt was seeking companionship status and visitation of her sister’s three children, who were adopted by another aunt when their mother passed away in 2013. Continue Reading A pain worse than losing: Dismissal for lack of a final appealable order
We’re pleased to introduce a new blog feature today: Five questions (or more) with a judge. Judge Christopher B. Epley of the Second District Court of Appeals was kind enough to answer our slightly more than five questions. Continue Reading Five (or more) questions with a judge: Second District Judge Chris Epley
In April 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in City of Maple Heights v. Netflix, Inc. & Hulu, LLC, a certified question case. Such cases are governed by Section 9 of the Ohio Supreme Court’s Rules of Practice and only come up a few times a year. Continue Reading Ohio Supreme Court set to answer certified question from federal court