Photo of Brad Hughes

Brad is a partner in Porter Wright’s Litigation Department and chairs the firm’s Appellate Practice Group. He represents clients in appeals, original actions and complex commercial litigation. Brad has assisted oil and gas clients and electric utilities in appeals before the Supreme Court of Ohio and in regulatory matters before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

In April 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in City of Maple Heights v. Netflix, Inc. & Hulu, LLC, a certified question case. Such cases are governed by Section 9 of the Ohio Supreme Court’s Rules of Practice and only come up a few times a year.
Continue Reading Ohio Supreme Court set to answer certified question from federal court

Attorneys frequently navigate choppy waters between the presumption of openness that applies to court proceedings and the insistence of their clients to file a number of documents under seal to maintain the secrecy of information relevant to the proceedings.
Continue Reading Ohio Supreme Court grants writs to expose sealed affidavit, prevent use of pseudonym

OHIO APPELLATE INSIGHTS /stats

The Ohio Supreme Court has a few great mysteries. A recurring one is how long you’ll have to wait to determine whether your case will be accepted as a discretionary appeal.
Continue Reading Putting numbers behind Ohio Supreme Court jurisdictional decisions: How long do they take?

Let’s face it — the practice of law can be very frustrating at times. Attorneys address unreasonable demands from opposing counsel, tight deadlines, impossibly broad discovery requests, and other issues that escalate stress levels and trigger emotions. A recent decision from the Ohio Supreme Court in Cleveland Metro. Bar Assn. v. Morton presents a cautionary tale about a frustrated attorney’s intemperate assertions in a Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction filed in that Court.
Continue Reading Counsel beware of intemperate assertions in briefs; First Amendment may not save you from discipline

Although this appellate blog focuses primarily on civil appeals, every now and then the Ohio Supreme Court issues a noteworthy opinion in a criminal case that addresses a legal doctrine equally significant to civil attorneys and their business clients. The court’s Oct. 21, 2021, decision in State v. Hubbard is just such a criminal case. Why? Because the split decision reflects a deep divide on the court on the appropriate way to analyze retroactive laws – statutes that are intended to reach back in time and apply to persons or circumstances predating the law’s effective date. This issue arises with frequency on the civil side of the practice. For example, one of the cases I worked on for former Justice Cook during my clerkship years ago, Bielat v. Bielat, involved a retroactive law about beneficiary designations in IRAs, and is cited in Hubbard. 
Continue Reading When the General Assembly reaches back in time: Analyzing retroactive laws

Back in the late 1990s when I attended the University of Dayton School of Law, I had the opportunity to serve as an extern at Ohio’s Second District Court of Appeals for a few months. I remember the court administrator telling me that one focus of my externship would be helping the judges decide whether the appellants in newly filed appeals were appealing from final, appealable orders. I recall thinking to myself — naively —“How hard can that really be?” Little did I know how vexing that particular question would become not only during my externship, but also throughout my legal career. A recent (and split) decision from the Ohio Supreme Court in Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow v. Ohio State Board of Education (ECOT) illustrates just how tricky the concept of finality truly can be, and how judges can disagree sharply on whether or not a given order is both final and appealable under Ohio law.   
Continue Reading Sure, the order is ‘final,’ but is it a final appealable order?