The Supreme Court of Ohio released another round of jurisdictional decisions on March 3, 2026, declining review in 32 cases and accepting two criminal appeals. The latest discretionary docket update provides additional data for our 2026 year-to-date analysis of Ohio Supreme Court acceptance rates and jurisdictional trends. This announcement addresses 32 rejections and 2 targeted acceptances giving more data for our 2026 Year-to-Date (YTD) analytics but largely confirming the Feb. 21 statistics.

As of March 3, 2026, the Supreme Court continues to use its discretionary docket as a precise instrument for legal management, particularly through the use of holds for pending lead cases.

March 3, 2026 Ohio Supreme Court jurisdictional decisions: Volume and acceptance rate

The release featured 34 total decisions in the discretionary docket.

• The acceptance rate: ~5.8% (2/34).
• The “hold” strategy: Both cases accepted today—State v. Thurmond (2025-1679) and State v. Reed (2026-0028)—were sua sponte held for the decision in State v. Striblin (2024-1050).
• The trend: The court is not currently opening many “new” fronts for merit review. Instead, it is funneling cases into existing “pipelines” like Striblin, which deals with procedural and constitutional issues associated with gun-related crimes.

2026 year-to-date: The big picture

With the addition of the March 3 data, our cumulative 2026 dataset now encompasses 179 total discretionary decisions.

Notable dissents and local impact in Ohio Supreme Court jurisdictional decisions

For practitioners in the Second District, these recent announcements hit close to home. Two cases involving the City of Centerville (Morse Rd. Dev., L.L.C. v. Centerville) were declined but not without significant internal debate that highlights a “split” in the court’s thinking on the jurisdictional question.

• The Centerville angle: In the Morse Road Development cases (2025-1671 & 2025-1672), Justice Shanahan dissented, arguing the court should hold these matters for the pending decision in Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville (2025-0753). This highlights a burgeoning cluster of land-use and municipal authority cases centered in Montgomery County.
• Justice Fischer’s consistent pulse: Justice Fischer continues to be the most active voice for granting review, dissenting from the denial of discretionary review in McCarthy v. Lee (2026-0003), a case involving medical malpractice and the discovery rule for the statute of repose.
• Justice Brunner & Justice Shanahan: These two justices teamed up in a dissent saying the court should have accepted Smith v. Mercy Health-Clermont Hosp. (2025-1663), signaling a shared interest in statute-of-limitations questions involving tolling issues.

Procedural lessons: The “rule of 50”

The “Jurisdictional Speed Index” (JSI) remains remarkably consistent. Cases that are ultimately accepted or held typically take slightly longer—averaging 58 days —compared to the 49-day average for declining jurisdiction.

If your jurisdictional memorandum has been pending for more than 55 days after the opposition or waiver was filed, the data suggests you have moved out of the “summary rejection” tier and into the “active deliberation” tier (although we are not entirely sure that isn’t a data blip, given the court’s review schedule—again these statistics are for entertainment use only).

Realistic limitations

While our YTD acceptance rate of 7. 2% is a helpful benchmark, it is important to remember that the actual rate for a standard merit grant (excluding holds and conflict cases) is likely closer to 4-5%. The court’s willingness to hold similar cases often inflates the headline acceptance rate.

Strategic takeaway: If your case shares a legal nexus with a pending lead case like Striblin or Sheetz, your odds of acceptance (as a hold) increase dramatically. However, for independent business or tort litigation, the threshold for entry remains historically high.

What the March 3 announcements suggest

The March 3 jurisdictional decisions reinforce a familiar trend: the Supreme Court of Ohio continues to maintain a very selective discretionary docket, with most cases rejected and a small number accepted as procedural “holds” tied to pending precedent. For appellate practitioners, the data suggests that cases linked to existing lead appeals. Examples include Striblin or Sheetz where significantly higher odds of jurisdictional acceptance are observed.