Last month, Terry Posey wrote on the blog about supplemental authority at oral argument — before the intermediate court of appeals. But what about the Ohio Supreme Court?
Continue Reading What’s fair game in supplementation at the Ohio Supreme Court?
When holding is (possibly) not controlling: The Ohio Supreme Court uses new way to identify plurality opinions
Plurality opinions are frequently a bane of appellate practitioners. When there are four justices in agreement as to the outcome of the case, but not the rationale, the plurality opinion can leave good authority, but no binding precedent. In fact, without four justices joining the rationale, a plurality decision does not represent a “holding of the court,” as seen in Fed. Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v. Schwartzwald. Schwartzwald actually relied on the Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 2(A):
“A majority of the supreme court shall be necessary to constitute a quorum or to render a judgment.”