Appellate Rules

Subscribe to Appellate Rules via RSS

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.Continue Reading Analyzing the March 17, 2026 Ohio Supreme Court jurisdictional announcements

The Supreme Court of Ohio recently clarified a key question in Ohio zoning law: when does a zoning decision trigger the right to appeal? In 729 West 130th Street, L.L.C. v. Hinckley Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, the court held that an informal email from a zoning inspector is not a “decision” under R.C. 519.15 and does not start the 20-day appeal deadline.Continue Reading When does the zoning appeal clock start in Ohio?

It is often said that in Ohio politics, a good last name is worth ten points on Election Day and a lifetime of “Wait, which one are you again?” at the local bar association holiday party.  For attorneys navigating Ohio’s 12 appellate districts, the roster of Ohio appellate judges can sometimes feel like a family reunion.Continue Reading What’s in a name? – Ohio’s tradition of name familiarity on the appellate bench

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.Continue Reading Inside the “black box:” Analyzing the March 3, 2026 jurisdictional announcements

Welcome back to OhioAppeals.com. For practitioners, the Ohio Supreme Court’s discretionary docket can often feel like a black box. By tracking every yes and no, we aim to provide a data-driven look at how the Supreme Court is shaping its calendar.Continue Reading Inside the “black box:” Analyzing the Feb. 17, 2026 jurisdictional announcements

In legal practice, few things trigger more anxiety than the collision of a long-awaited family vacation and a newly issued oral argument notice from the Ohio Supreme Court. As we have documented on this blog previously, the court is notoriously reluctant to reschedule arguments. Under S. Ct. Prac. R. 17.01(D), an assignment before the High Court takes precedence over nearly everything else.Continue Reading Oral argument continuances 2026: A rare success in Straub Nissan for vacations!

Sometimes the most fundamental questions yield the most contentious answers

It sounds like a trick question, doesn’t it? How long is one year? 12 months, right? 365 days (366 in a leap year)? Well, according to a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision, the answer depends on whether you’re counting forward from an event or computing a statutory deadline, and the distinction matters more than you might think.Continue Reading How long is one year?

Those pesky final, appealable order questions just never stop coming

I remember 30 years ago when I served as a law-student intern at Ohio’s Second District Court of Appeals, one of my primary jobs was to review incoming appeals to help the judges decide whether the orders being appealed were final, appealable orders (FAOs) under Ohio law.Continue Reading Is denial of bifurcation a final appealable order? Maybe not, but the court isn’t telling why (yet)

We often hear the phrase “words matter” in appellate practice, but rarely does a case turn so heavily on the specific grammatical function of a single transitive verb. In a decision released last month, Z.J. v. R.M., 2025-Ohio-5662, the Ohio Supreme Court resolved a long-standing district conflict regarding the menacing-by-stalking statute.Continue Reading Diagramming intent: Supreme Court resolves stalking statute conflict with grammar lesson (and a chart)

Imagine a scenario: a municipality’s actions—say, noise and vibrations from a city-owned airport—effectively “take” a neighboring property. The catch? The property owner lives in a different jurisdiction. The municipality that “took” the property argues it has no authority to appropriate land outside its own borders, so a court can’t possibly order it to do so. Therefore, the municipality argues, the property owner lacks standing because their injury isn’t “redressable.”Continue Reading Takings & standing: Can you sue a “foreign municipality” for inverse condemnation? The Ohio Supreme Court says “yes”