Appellate Rules

Subscribe to Appellate Rules via RSS

Brief QC overview

On June 2, 2025, the Sixth Circuit rolled out its newest service, Brief Quality Control, or Brief QC. Brief QC is designed to prevent non-compliance issues with appellate briefs before they are formally filed with the Sixth Circuit. It is an additional step in the traditional ECF filing procedures that flags certain compliance issues.

The aim of Brief QC is to reduce the administrative burden placed on the Clerk’s Office and practitioners. As mentioned in the Brief QC announcement, the Sixth Circuit issued more than 700 deficiency notices in 2024, delaying cases and posing significant other issues.Continue Reading The Sixth Circuit’s goal of quality control

The Ohio Supreme Court’s Office of the Clerk recently released the Court’s Annual Statistics Report for the 2024 calendar year. Keep reading for the most up-to-date information on Supreme Court case volumes and trends in operational efficiency that have helped streamline case timelines.Continue Reading A year in numbers: Decade highs and lows detailed in Ohio Supreme Court’s 2024 Annual Statistics Report

On April 16, 2025, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed Crozier v. Pipe Creek Conservancy as improvidently accepted. Having a discretionary appeal dismissed as improvidently accepted means:

  1. You presented an issue of great general or public interest (or a constitutional question) worthy of the Supreme Court’s review;
  2. The Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction over your proposition of law;
  3. You and your opponents briefed the issue on the merits;
  4. You had the opportunity to participate in oral argument (and usually actually did so); and
  5. The Supreme Court dismissed the case without issuing a decision on the merits.

Seems like a waste, right?Continue Reading A pain worse than losing: Dismissal as improvidently accepted

When the Ohio Supreme Court accepts a proposition of law for jurisdictional appeal, it typically requires litigants to file merit briefs and present oral arguments before the Court. But what if the Ohio Supreme Court and an intermediate appellate court issue conflicting rulings almost simultaneously? In rare instances, after issuing its ruling in an already submitted case, the Court may sua sponte accept your client’s jurisdictional appeal and render a judgment based on the precedent set in that prior case – resolving your case in one swift action. Continue Reading Victory without a word: How to win your case at the Ohio Supreme Court without merit briefing or oral argument

Jury demand withdrawal

Under Civ.R. 38(B), a party seeking a jury trial must serve a jury demand on the other party or parties not later than 14 days after the service of the last pleading directed to such issue. It has long been held by the Ohio Supreme Court that trial court local rules requiring a jury deposit to accompany the jury demand are a reasonable and moderate regulation of the right of trial by jury, and not an impairment of that right. Where a local rule requires a jury deposit, the jury demand is perfected upon both timely serving the jury demand and paying the jury deposit. The Ohio Supreme Court recently confirmed in Estate of Tomlinson v. Mega Pool Warehouse that Civ.R. 38(D) controlled over a trial court’s local rule requiring each party seeking a jury trial to pay a jury deposit. Thus, once one of the parties perfects a jury demand, the right to a jury trial is secured for all parties and cannot be withdrawn without the consent of all parties. In this case, your author briefed and orally argued the case before the Ohio Supreme Court on behalf of the defendants.Continue Reading 2024 Ohio Supreme Court precedent in review

On Aug. 7, 2024, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in Kyser v. Summit County Children Services (discretionary case number 2022-1419 and certified conflict case number 2023-0126) for lack of a final appealable order under R.C. 2506.01 on a 5-2 vote. The decision came after full rounds of substantive briefing in the trial court, intermediate appellate court, and the Supreme Court of Ohio. On the eve of oral argument before the Supreme Court of Ohio, the court requested briefing on whether a final appealable order existed and, ultimately, dismissed the appeal on that basis.Continue Reading The first checklist question: Is there a final appealable order?

Discretionary appeals at the Ohio Supreme Court are under strict timing requirements pursuant to Supreme Court Rules of Practice 7.01(A). Absent an application for reconsideration or a motion for en banc review in the lower court, a notice of appeal and a memorandum in support of jurisdiction must be filed within 45 days of the judgment being appealed. Under Rule 7.02(E), the Clerk of the Supreme Court is under instructions not to file an untimely notice of appeal (or one being filed without a memorandum in support of jurisdiction). There is no way to get an extension on the timing (absent certain circumstances in criminal cases).

But what if you need an extension on the response? Maybe you are going on vacation, have a pressing work conflict, or just need additional time to research.Continue Reading Doing the impossible: How to get an extension to file a memorandum in response to a memorandum in support of jurisdiction at the Ohio Supreme Court

In early 2023, Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy of the Supreme Court of Ohio announced the Court’s intent to streamline the legal citation process in Ohio. In furtherance of that goal, the Court formed a new committee tasked with proposing changes to The Supreme Court of Ohio Writing Manual, a guide for formatting legal citations in state court.

The Writing Manual Revision Committee’s proposed changes were adopted by the Court in Feb. 2024 and the new edition of the manual took effect on June 17th, 2024. The updated manual includes, among other things: stronger language directing lawyers to follow the manual; the introduction of a navigable homepage (presenting examples of properly cited sources); revisions to case and statute citation rules; and guidance on when to use a parenthetical phrase “(cleaned up)” in certain citations that has sparked recent debate within the legal community.Continue Reading A new day for legal citation in Ohio

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?