The Ohio Supreme Court’s jurisdictional announcement on March 17, 2026, serves as a stark reminder of the “selective” nature of the discretionary docket. While previous weeks in February and early March showed higher acceptance rates due to held cases, this most recent announcement saw a return to a high-threshold review, particularly in the civil arena. Below, we break down the data from this release, including a practice-area analysis, and how it impacts the 2026 Year-to-Date (YTD) benchmarks for practitioners.
The March 17 snapshot: A 4% day
This announcements covered 25 discretionary appeals. Of those, only one was accepted for review.
- The acceptance rate: 4.0% (1/25).
- The lone grant: The court accepted jurisdiction in Sheldon v. Ohio Assn. of Pub. School Emps. (Case No. 2025-1708). This was a 5-2 vote, with Justices Brunner and Deters dissenting. The appeal will address whether a common pleas court has jurisdiction to address the validity of dues deduction contracts between public employees and unions.
Practice area breakdown: criminal vs. civil
The March 17 release was heavily weighted toward criminal appeals, yet the only grant occurred on the civil side. This divergence highlights the current difficulty in clearing the “public or great general interest” hurdle for independent criminal matters.
March 17 breakdown
| Practice Area | Accepted | Rejected | Acceptance Rate |
| Criminal | 0 | 16 | 0.0% |
| Civil | 1 | 8 | 11.1% |
2026 Year-to-Date (total decisions: 205)
When we look at the full year, a clear trend emerges, while there is a higher volume of criminal appeals filed, the pure civil appeal is still slightly harder to get through the door than the hold-pattern criminal appeal.
- Criminal appeals (7.0% acceptance): Out of 114 criminal decisions, eight were accepted. Many of these continue to be holds for lead cases like State v. Striblin.
- Civil appeals (4.5% acceptance): Out of 89 standard civil decisions, only 4 were accepted. This indicates that the threshold for a civil case—absent a certified conflict or a massive regulatory question—remains the most difficult climb for practitioners.
The “shadow vote:” Who is listening?
The “lone dissent” from a jurisdictional denial identifies which justices are receptive to specific legal arguments.
- The leaders in receptivity: Justice Brunner (24 dissents) and Justice Fischer (23 dissents) remain the most frequent voices in favor of accepting jurisdiction YTD.
- The March 17 dissents: Among the most recent rejections, we saw a notable lack of “fragmented” voting. Most rejections were unanimous, suggesting that for the 24 cases declined, the court was in near-total agreement that they lacked the necessary jurisdictional triggers.
The “Jurisdictional Speed Index” (JSI)
We define the JSI as the number of days between the jurisdictional referral (the filing of a response/waiver or the 30-day mark) and the final decision.
- Avg. wait (accepted YTD): 51.9 days
- Avg. wait (rejected YTD): 48.0 days
- The “waiver advantage”: Filing a Waiver of Memorandum in Response currently results in a decision average of 47.3 days, compared to 48.3 days for those who file a full Opposition. For appellees, the waiver remains a cost-effective way to reach a rejection just as quickly. This is interesting, however, because a waiver must be filed within 20 days (as opposed to the 30-day time limit to file an opposition).
Data comparison: March 17 vs. 2026 YTD
| Metric | March 17 Announcement | 2026 Year-to-Date |
| Overall Acceptance Rate | 4.00% | 6.34% |
| Criminal Acceptance Rate | 0.00% | 7.02% |
| Civil Acceptance Rate | 11.11% | 4.49% |
| Avg. Wait Time | 48.2 Days | 50.1 Days |
The bottom line for practitioners
The data from March 17 reinforces the “Rule of Five.” While much is made of the “Rule of Four” required to grant jurisdiction, the majority of the court is currently moving in blocks of five or six to accept cases.
For the civil litigator, this 11% snapshot is a rare bright spot in what is normally a 4.5% YTD climb. For criminal practitioners, the 0% day is a reminder that unless your case fits an existing hold pattern (like Striblin), the court is currently highly selective about opening new merit fronts.