What is the Ohio Supreme Court up to these days on the civil side?

With the first quarter of 2025 already in the rear-view mirror, it’s a great time to check out the Issues Accepted for Review page on the Ohio Supreme Court’s website. 

If you’re a fan of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Iqbal and Twombly decisions, zoning appeals, Ohio’s cap on compensatory damages, or the so-called “sham affidavit” doctrine, then you’ll want to stay updated on some of the cases identified on that useful page. Then you can sign up for the Court’s Case Activity Notification Service to get the latest on these cases and more, which have already been accepted for review, but not yet decided on the merits.

Extra three days after U.S. Mail service to object?

By a vote of 4-3, the Court narrowly accepted review of Eggleston v. Wood.  In this case, the appellant asks the Court to resolve an apparent conflict among Ohio’s appellate districts about the so-called “extra three days” rule in Civil Rule 6; specifically, whether parties get an extra three days to object when a Magistrate’s decision is served via U.S. Mail. This rule can be crucial, as seen in this case involving a $25,000 per month (!) child support award against a former NBA player.

Thoughts on Twombly and Iqbal?

In a 5-2 decision in the case of Bethel Oil and Gas, LLC v. Redbird Devel., LLC, the Court has agreed to consider whether the Ohio Supreme Court should formally adopt the U.S. Supreme Court’s Iqbal and Twombly decisions to prevent “shotgun pleadings and implausible claims.” These decisions, now nearly two decades old, were highlighted in the appellant’s successful Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction. The appellant argues that the Court’s acceptance of this appeal will allow the Court “to resolve inconsistencies among Ohio courts, which often disagree on what level of specificity a plaintiff must plead, to align Ohio procedural law with its federal counterpart under the same rule, and to finally resolve an issue that impacts nearly every civil litigation case filed in Ohio.” We shall see!

Deadline to appeal a zoning inspector’s decision?

The case, 729 West 130^th Street, LLC, v. Hinckley Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, accepted by a 4-3 vote, asks what constitutes a “decision” by a zoning inspector that triggers the time for an administrative appeal. Is an email enough? This case involves a tavern formerly (and cleverly) known as the “Adult Day Care Center,” operating as a nonconforming use in a residential zoning district. What notifications trigger an appealable order is a frequent issue before the Court, as we covered in a different context last year.

Applying the damages cap in comparative negligence cases?

Ohio is a comparative negligence state with a $500,000 cap on noneconomic compensatory damages. The statutory damages cap is currently under review in Coykendall v. Lima Refining Co. The Court will decide if the cap should be applied by trial courts before or after allocating comparative fault among multiple negligent parties. The appellant contends that the trial court’s mathematical order of operations in this case resulted in a damages award $300,000 higher than it should have been.

The “sham affidavit” doctrine

In Moore v. Mercy Medical Center, the Court will clarify if the so-called “sham affidavit” doctrine applies only to contradictions of sworn testimony, or also to prior unsworn statements. This case, accepted by a 4-3 vote, involves a medical malpractice claim where an expert’s affidavit arguably conflicted with the expert’s prior unsworn statements.

Stay informed on Ohio Supreme Court civil decisions

These summaries highlight some of the key civil litigation issues the Ohio Supreme Court will address in the coming year. The close votes show how challenging it can be to get the Court to review discretionary appeals in the first place — a topic we have blogged about before. 

Ohio’s appellate practitioners should stay abreast of what the Supreme Court is up to, and the Issues Accepted for Review page is a valuable resource for this purpose. If you have a pending case that involves issues currently under review, there is precedent for requesting a stay pending the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision. For example, in State v. Daly, the appeal was stayed pending the Court’s resolution of another appeal concerning the Reagan Tokes Act. Similarly, in Houston v. AT&T Teleholdings, Inc., the appeal was stayed pending the Court’s decision on another appeal from the same district.

Stay tuned to this blog for future updates about the Ohio Supreme Court’s notable civil decisions and other appellate procedure developments.