Photo of Terry Posey

Terry Posey

Subscribe to Terry Posey's Posts

Terry is an Ohio State Bar Association certified appellate specialist and a former Ohio Supreme Court clerk. He represents clients in all aspects of complex litigation, with a particular emphasis on the appellate aspects of those disputes. He has successfully argued in all 12 Ohio appellate districts and the Ohio Supreme Court.

Follow:Read more about Terry PoseyTerry's Linkedin Profile

Welcome back to OhioAppeals.com. For practitioners, the Ohio Supreme Court’s discretionary docket can often feel like a black box. By tracking every yes and no, we aim to provide a data-driven look at how the Supreme Court is shaping its calendar.Continue Reading Inside the “black box:” Analyzing the Feb. 17, 2026 jurisdictional announcements

In legal practice, few things trigger more anxiety than the collision of a long-awaited family vacation and a newly issued oral argument notice from the Ohio Supreme Court. As we have documented on this blog previously, the court is notoriously reluctant to reschedule arguments. Under S. Ct. Prac. R. 17.01(D), an assignment before the High Court takes precedence over nearly everything else.Continue Reading Oral argument continuances 2026: A rare success in Straub Nissan for vacations!

We often hear the phrase “words matter” in appellate practice, but rarely does a case turn so heavily on the specific grammatical function of a single transitive verb. In a decision released last month, Z.J. v. R.M., 2025-Ohio-5662, the Ohio Supreme Court resolved a long-standing district conflict regarding the menacing-by-stalking statute.Continue Reading Diagramming intent: Supreme Court resolves stalking statute conflict with grammar lesson (and a chart)

Imagine a scenario: a municipality’s actions—say, noise and vibrations from a city-owned airport—effectively “take” a neighboring property. The catch? The property owner lives in a different jurisdiction. The municipality that “took” the property argues it has no authority to appropriate land outside its own borders, so a court can’t possibly order it to do so. Therefore, the municipality argues, the property owner lacks standing because their injury isn’t “redressable.”Continue Reading Takings & standing: Can you sue a “foreign municipality” for inverse condemnation? The Ohio Supreme Court says “yes”

On April 16, 2025, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed Crozier v. Pipe Creek Conservancy as improvidently accepted. Having a discretionary appeal dismissed as improvidently accepted means:

  1. You presented an issue of great general or public interest (or a constitutional question) worthy of the Supreme Court’s review;
  2. The Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction over your proposition of law;
  3. You and your opponents briefed the issue on the merits;
  4. You had the opportunity to participate in oral argument (and usually actually did so); and
  5. The Supreme Court dismissed the case without issuing a decision on the merits.

Seems like a waste, right?Continue Reading A pain worse than losing: Dismissal as improvidently accepted

Discretionary appeals at the Ohio Supreme Court are under strict timing requirements pursuant to Supreme Court Rules of Practice 7.01(A). Absent an application for reconsideration or a motion for en banc review in the lower court, a notice of appeal and a memorandum in support of jurisdiction must be filed within 45 days of the judgment being appealed. Under Rule 7.02(E), the Clerk of the Supreme Court is under instructions not to file an untimely notice of appeal (or one being filed without a memorandum in support of jurisdiction). There is no way to get an extension on the timing (absent certain circumstances in criminal cases).

But what if you need an extension on the response? Maybe you are going on vacation, have a pressing work conflict, or just need additional time to research.Continue Reading Doing the impossible: How to get an extension to file a memorandum in response to a memorandum in support of jurisdiction at the Ohio Supreme Court

Yet another reminder: The mandatory nature of the Ohio Supreme Court’s Rules of Practice  

In Ohio state-court litigation, most timing deadlines are not automatic and can be “finessed” if need be (aside from the mandatory 30-day time period to file a notice of appeal).

The Ohio Supreme Court, however, treats most of the timing rules in the Ohio Supreme Court Rules of Practice as dispositive of the issue presented.Continue Reading Understanding the Ohio Supreme Court timing requirements

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.Continue Reading Thinking about appellate strategy with Michael Hendershot, Ohio Solicitor General’s Office

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