The Ohio Supreme Court has recently focused on initiatives to enhance the timelier administration of justice. The Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio, for example, impose time limits for appellate and civil cases as indicated on the Supreme Court’s case-management reporting forms. Continue Reading Does your judge need a nudge? Consider the Ohio Supreme Court’s recently launched Case Inquiry Form
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
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?
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
This article highlights new developments on the subject of a former Ohio Appellate Insights post considering the authority of appellate courts to immediately review appeals from provisional orders.Continue Reading Appellate review of provisional judicial orders: If it quacks like a duck…
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
We’ve had conversations with judges, but for this installment, I will be discussing appellate strategy with Michael Hendershot, Deputy Solicitor General at the Ohio Solicitor General’s Office. Michael has served as a law clerk for on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, a law clerk for an Ohio Supreme Court Justice, an attorney in private practice, and since 2008, with the Solicitor General’s office, where he has briefed and argued more than 30 appeals at the Ohio Supreme Court.Continue Reading Thinking about appellate strategy with Michael Hendershot, Ohio Solicitor General’s Office
In mid-December 2022, Larry Ebner, the well-known appellate advocate behind Capital Appellate Advocacy in Washington, D.C., published an op-ed at Law360 titled Federal Courts Should Follow Supreme Court’s Amicus Stance. In this op-ed, Ebner noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had announced revisions to its rules, effective Jan. 1, 2023, that eliminate the requirement for amici curiae to obtain the parties’ consent, or the court’s permission, to file their amicus briefs. Ebner went on to argue that the corresponding rules for the federal circuit courts (see FRAP 29) should similarly be amended to eliminate the consent requirement for amicus briefs.Continue Reading Changing rules to eliminate consent requirements for amicus briefs – how far will they go?
As many readers of this blog likely will be aware, the doctrine of administrative deference — the extent to which courts may properly defer to agencies’ interpretations of statutes and/or rules — has been a hot topic in recent years in the United States Supreme Court.Continue Reading Appellate practitioners take note: Ohio Supreme Court has rejected mandatory deference to agencies’ interpretations of rules and statutes