Photo of Ahmad Huda

Ahmad has defended large and mid-sized companies in a variety of high-stakes disputes, including matters arising out of alleged breaches of purchase-and-sale agreements, license agreements and employment agreements. His experience also includes representing clients in matters involving eminent domain, product liability, insurance recovery, intellectual property and business torts.

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.”

Continue Reading When holding is (possibly) not controlling: The Ohio Supreme Court uses new way to identify plurality opinions