October 2021

Last year, I spent some time looking at the Ohio Supreme Court’s response to motions to reschedule oral argument. There have been another few requests lately, and it is worth seeing if we can divine any potential outcomes.

If you’re not up to speed on the process, the Ohio Supreme Court generally denies motions to reschedule oral argument. This stated preference begins in S.Ct.Prac.R. 17.01(D):

An oral argument assignment before the Supreme Court takes precedence over assignments in other courts of this state.
Continue Reading Rescheduling oral argument at the Supreme Court (2021 edition)

Although this appellate blog focuses primarily on civil appeals, every now and then the Ohio Supreme Court issues a noteworthy opinion in a criminal case that addresses a legal doctrine equally significant to civil attorneys and their business clients. The court’s Oct. 21, 2021, decision in State v. Hubbard is just such a criminal case. Why? Because the split decision reflects a deep divide on the court on the appropriate way to analyze retroactive laws – statutes that are intended to reach back in time and apply to persons or circumstances predating the law’s effective date. This issue arises with frequency on the civil side of the practice. For example, one of the cases I worked on for former Justice Cook during my clerkship years ago, Bielat v. Bielat, involved a retroactive law about beneficiary designations in IRAs, and is cited in Hubbard. 
Continue Reading When the General Assembly reaches back in time: Analyzing retroactive laws

Read the analysis of the oral argument here.

On October 27, 2021, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral argument in State of Ohio v. Kennedy M. Burroughs, 2020-1304.  At issue in this case is whether law enforcement officers can search a partially open backpack, found in plain view inside an individual’s home…

Update. Read an analysis of the argument here.

On October 26, 2021, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral argument in Tammy Smathers, individually and on behalf of the Estate of Harmony Brooklyn Rayne Carsey v. Rick Glass, Executive Director of Perry County Children’s Services, et al., 2020-1062. At issue in…

Update: Read the analysis of the argument here.

On October 26, 2021, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral argument in State of Ohio v. Daniel J. Campbell, 2020-1187. At issue in this case is whether the warrantless, suspicionless search of a probationer’s cell phone violated the Fourth Amendment or R.C. 2951.02…

Back in the late 1990s when I attended the University of Dayton School of Law, I had the opportunity to serve as an extern at Ohio’s Second District Court of Appeals for a few months. I remember the court administrator telling me that one focus of my externship would be helping the judges decide whether the appellants in newly filed appeals were appealing from final, appealable orders. I recall thinking to myself — naively —“How hard can that really be?” Little did I know how vexing that particular question would become not only during my externship, but also throughout my legal career. A recent (and split) decision from the Ohio Supreme Court in Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. Ohio State Board of Education (ECOT) illustrates just how tricky the concept of finality truly can be, and how judges can disagree sharply on whether or not a given order is both final and appealable under Ohio law.   
Continue Reading Sure, the order is ‘final,’ but is it a final appealable order?

“While Walls’s role was vital and essential to the hospital, he was not engaged in the active practice of medicine or in a role adjunctive to patient care.”

Justice Fischer, opinion of the Court

On September 22, 2021, the Supreme Court of Ohio handed down a merit decision in Johnson v. Abdullah, Slip Opinion No.

An Ohio appellate practitioner has two primary questions to answer. First, “Do I have a final appealable order?” Assuming the answer to that question is yes, the second question is, “What’s the applicable standard of review?” On Sept. 22, 2021, the Ohio Supreme Court issued  Johnson v. Abdullah, which reemphasizes the importance of understanding the applicable standard.
Continue Reading When is the ‘abuse of discretion’ standard of review actually ‘de novo’?

“The city’s billboard tax infringes on the rights to free speech and a free press protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Justice Kennedy, opinion of the Court

On September 16, 2021 the Supreme Court of Ohio handed down a merit decision in Lamar Advantage GP Co., L.L.C. v. Cincinnati, Slip…