When the Ohio Supreme Court accepts a proposition of law for jurisdictional appeal, it typically requires litigants to file merit briefs and present oral arguments before the Court. But what if the Ohio Supreme Court and an intermediate appellate court issue conflicting rulings almost simultaneously? In rare instances, after issuing its ruling in an already submitted case, the Court may sua sponte accept your client’s jurisdictional appeal and render a judgment based on the precedent set in that prior case – resolving your case in one swift action.
How an appellant secured a sua sponte reversal and remand in Quellos v. Johnson based on the jurisdictional memoranda
On April 18, 2023, the Supreme Court held oral argument in McCullough v. Bennett, which addressed whether the judicially created “one-use” restriction of the Ohio Savings Statute (R.C. 2305.19) bars a plaintiff from filing a third complaint after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, when the filing and dismissal of the second complaint occurred before the statute expired. The Second District Court of Appeals held on June 3, 2022, that under those circumstances that the savings statute still applied to revive the Complaint.
While McCullough v. Bennett was pending before the Ohio Supreme Court, Quellos v. Johnson was pending before the Eighth District Court of Appeals. Notably, the Eighth District outlined the Second District’s holding that was the subject of a proposition of law accepted in McCullough v. Bennett, conflicted with relevant Eighth District precedent in Rector v. Dorsey, 2021-Ohio-2675 (8th Dist.). Specifically, Rector v. Dorsey held that the one-use restriction barred a plaintiff from filing a third complaint after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations, when the filing and dismissal of the second complaint occurred before the statute expired, whereas the Second District did not. Within weeks of each other, the Ohio Supreme Court and Eighth District issued opposing opinions on this question, with the Ohio Supreme Court affirming the Second District’s decision in McCullough v. Bennett.
The Ohio Supreme Court held that the statutory text of R.C. 2305.19(A) did not support the “one-use” restriction, allowing a plaintiff to file a claim a third time if the plaintiff’s first two complaints failed otherwise than on the merits and the third complaint was filed within one year of dismissal of the second complaint. By contrast, the Eighth District relied on its precedent, and held the “one-use” restriction barred the filing of a third complaint.
Given these inconsistent rulings, a notice of appeal and jurisdictional memorandum were filed in Quellos v. Johnson. The appellant’s arguments centered on the recent McCullough v. Bennett opinion and the fact that the same issue had been decided differently by the Eighth District. In response, the appellees did not dispute the inconsistency but instead argued that the case did not present an issue of public or great general interest.
Within three months, the Ohio Supreme Court, upon consideration of the jurisdictional memoranda, issued a sua sponte judgment reversing and remanding Quellos v. Johnson for the application of the McCullough v. Bennett precedent.
S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08(B) governs decisions on jurisdiction and provides the Ohio Supreme Court broad discretion, including, relevant here, the authority to accept an appeal and enter judgment summarily, and to take any other action the Court deems appropriate. S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08(B)(3), (5). While the Court did not specify the rule under which it entered judgment in its Entry, S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.08(B)(3), (5) authorized its acceptance and summary entry of judgment.
Takeaway on jurisdictional judgments
Although rare, if a litigant faces an adverse opinion from an intermediate appellate court that conflicts with a recent Ohio Supreme Court opinion, then the focus of jurisdictional arguments should center on that recent, contradictory ruling. The Ohio Supreme Court has shown a willingness to sua sponte accept jurisdictional appeals and issue a judgment based solely on the jurisdictional memoranda— but only when the legal issue directly aligns with a recent Supreme Court decision on the same point of law. This approach underscores the Court’s interest in maintaining consistency across Ohio’s legal system, particularly in cases of new, conflicting precedents. It is also a very fast way to win.