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.
Changing rules to eliminate consent requirements for amicus briefs – how far will they go?
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.
Appellate practitioners take note: Ohio Supreme Court has rejected mandatory deference to agencies’ interpretations of rules and statutes
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.
A pain worse than losing (Part 3): A jurisdictional defect
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
Appealing discovery orders compelling production of confidential information
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
Rethinking pleading standards: Is the Supreme Court finally ready to address Twombly and Iqbal?
It’s a generally understood concept that case law interpreting the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies equally to the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure—except in one main area: motions to dismiss. In Maternal Grandmother v. Hamilton Cty. Dept. of Job & Family Servs., the Ohio Supreme Court was tasked with addressing one question: Had a grandmother of an abused and neglected child sufficiently pleaded her claim against the Hamilton County agency tasked with the grandchild’s wellbeing to overcome statutory immunity? The case had been dismissed (and affirmed on appeal). On Nov. 23, 2021, the Supreme Court reversed.
Continue Reading Rethinking pleading standards: Is the Supreme Court finally ready to address Twombly and Iqbal?
When is the ‘abuse of discretion’ standard of review actually ‘de novo’?
An Ohio appellate practitioner has two primary questions to answer. First, “Do I have a final appealable order?” Assuming the answer to that question is yes, the second question is, “What’s the applicable standard of review?” On Sept. 22, 2021, the Ohio Supreme Court issued Johnson v. Abdullah, which reemphasizes the importance of understanding the applicable standard.
Continue Reading When is the ‘abuse of discretion’ standard of review actually ‘de novo’?
Remote oral argument
Strategies for and thoughts on telephonic oral argument.
Continue Reading Remote oral argument