Prepare for a Challenge…

A recent decision by Ohio’s Second District Court of Appeals addresses a couple of topics that have been recurring features on this blog: final appealable orders and secrecy in litigation. As to the former, we have previously discussed the complexity of characterizing orders that either grant or deny preliminary injunctive relief as either final, appealable orders (or not), in our recent blog posts found here and here. As to the latter, in early 2022, we discussed an Ohio Supreme Court decision called State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Shanahan, regarding whether a police officer could proceed under a pseudonym in his defamation case – and the Court in that case said no.Continue Reading Seeking to proceed under a pseudonym in Ohio State Court? 

Yet another reminder: The mandatory nature of the Ohio Supreme Court’s Rules of Practice  

In Ohio state-court litigation, most timing deadlines are not automatic and can be “finessed” if need be (aside from the mandatory 30-day time period to file a notice of appeal).

The Ohio Supreme Court, however, treats most of the timing rules in the Ohio Supreme Court Rules of Practice as dispositive of the issue presented.Continue Reading Understanding the Ohio Supreme Court timing requirements

Benjamin Franklin remarked in Poor Richard’s Almanack that “three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.” Keeping secrets is indeed a tricky business, and none the less so in civil litigation. Over the course of their careers in the law, the authors of this blog have perceived an increase in litigants’ attempts to maintain substantial amounts of information related to their cases under seal, even as they seek redress (or seek to defend themselves) in the ostensibly public forum of a courthouse. We addressed the “fine line between publicity and privacy in litigation” in this post early last year.Continue Reading ‘Appealing’ from no sealing: Recent Fifth District decision highlights procedural wrinkle in rules of superintendence

Imagine that your client has been sued for damages in federal court. In a motion for summary judgment, you assert what you believe to be a valid and compelling legal defense, such as the plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. There are no facts in dispute regarding the defense—it presents a purely legal question for the judge to resolve before any trial takes place. Yet the judge denies your dispositive motion, and so you proceed to a jury trial, where your client is hit with a substantial verdict. As you consider post-trial motions, you may wonder: must you re-brief the purely legal defense in a Rule 50 motion — even though the judge previously denied it on summary judgment — in order to preserve that issue for appeal?Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court agrees to resolve Dupree circuit split

Members of our firm’s Appellate Practice Group are consulted regularly by our colleagues about procedural issues arising from so-called interlocutory appeals. In other words, appeals taken (or attempted to be taken) from decisions by trial courts at some point before final judgment. Continue Reading The tricky business of appealing from decisions granting preliminary injunctive relief

As we approach the end of an election year that includes multiple Ohio Supreme Court races, we know that the Justices of the Ohio Supreme Court and their law clerks are hard at work drafting opinions in all cases that have already been orally argued. This diligence is so that the court’s opinions in those cases can be voted on and released before the election may cause changes to the bench in January. We can expect several eventful days between now and the end of the year, when a flurry of consequential new opinions in pending cases surely will be issued.

Tuesday, October 11, was one of those eventful days.Continue Reading An eventful day at the Ohio Supreme Court

We’ve written before about the heartfelt pain appellate lawyers experience when a case is dismissed after briefing and oral argument at the Ohio Supreme Court. In the first instance, it happened for a lack of a final appealable order. In the second, the court ultimately decided the case had already been mooted. It turns out there’s a third possibility — a jurisdictional defect.
Continue Reading A pain worse than losing (Part 3): A jurisdictional defect

Ohio’s final appealable order statute, Ohio Revised Code Section 2505.02, is complex and fraught with traps for the unwary. It can be difficult for counsel to discern or advise their clients with any high degree of confidence whether a given interlocutory decision by a trial judge is subject to immediate appeal, or whether that fight must await an appeal after final judgment. One specific context in which this vexing issue can arise relates to discovery orders compelling the production of allegedly privileged information, or the production of information potentially subject to the attorney work-product doctrine.
Continue Reading Appealing discovery orders compelling production of confidential information

At Ohio Appellate Insights, we are happy to announce that Porter Wright has “acquired” the long-running and well-regarded blog, Legally Speaking Ohio. Legally Speaking Ohio was run by University of Cincinnati Professor Emerita (and former First District Court of Appeals Judge) Marianna Brown Bettman, who is retiring this summer. Professor Bettman announced the transition here.
Continue Reading Appellate mergers and acquisitions (and retirements): The Legally Speaking Ohio legacy