Porter Wright

Subscribe to Porter Wright's Posts

Brief QC overview

On June 2, 2025, the Sixth Circuit rolled out its newest service, Brief Quality Control, or Brief QC. Brief QC is designed to prevent non-compliance issues with appellate briefs before they are formally filed with the Sixth Circuit. It is an additional step in the traditional ECF filing procedures that flags certain compliance issues.

The aim of Brief QC is to reduce the administrative burden placed on the Clerk’s Office and practitioners. As mentioned in the Brief QC announcement, the Sixth Circuit issued more than 700 deficiency notices in 2024, delaying cases and posing significant other issues.Continue Reading The Sixth Circuit’s goal of quality control

The Ohio Supreme Court’s Office of the Clerk recently released the Court’s Annual Statistics Report for the 2024 calendar year. Keep reading for the most up-to-date information on Supreme Court case volumes and trends in operational efficiency that have helped streamline case timelines.Continue Reading A year in numbers: Decade highs and lows detailed in Ohio Supreme Court’s 2024 Annual Statistics Report

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?

As we noted last week, this time of year brings eventful decision days at the Ohio Supreme Court. And Wednesday, Oct. 12, continued the trend with the Supreme Court’s decision allowing recovery of appellate attorney fees by prevailing parties who obtain and successfully defend punitive-damage awards in Cruz v. English Nanny & Governess School.
Continue Reading Ohio Supreme Court allows recovery of appellate attorney fees by prevailing parties who obtain punitive-damage awards and successfully defend judgments on appeal

For a variety of reasons, legal clients frequently prefer to use their out-of-state counsel for matters litigated before the Ohio Supreme Court or other Ohio tribunals. For these attorneys seeking to appear in Ohio courts and affiliated local counsel, the end of the calendar year – and the beginning of the next one – can come with harsh reminders about the timely need to renew pro hac vice registrations.
Continue Reading Pro hac vice pro tip: Ohio Supreme Court requires annual renewal

OHIO APPELLATE INSIGHTS /stats

In our last feature on Ohio Supreme Court statistics, we put numbers behind the question, “How long will it take for the Ohio Supreme Court to decide on a discretionary appeal, or jurisdictional?” If you have not had the opportunity to read that post, we were surprised to learn criminal cases were being decided faster.
Continue Reading Putting numbers behind Ohio Supreme Court jurisdictional decisions: What percentage of cases are being accepted?

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?

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