Appellate Rules

Subscribe to Appellate Rules via RSS

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”

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