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

Benjamin Franklin remarked in Poor Richard’s Almanack that “three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.” Keeping secrets is indeed a tricky business, and none the less so in civil litigation. Over the course of their careers in the law, the authors of this blog have perceived an increase in litigants’ attempts to maintain substantial amounts of information related to their cases under seal, even as they seek redress (or seek to defend themselves) in the ostensibly public forum of a courthouse. We addressed the “fine line between publicity and privacy in litigation” in this post early last year.

Continue Reading ‘Appealing’ from no sealing: Recent Fifth District decision highlights procedural wrinkle in rules of superintendence

As Ohio attorneys who focus on appellate issues, one of the trusty treatises we often consult in our practice is former First District Court of Appeals Judge Mark Painter’s seminal Ohio Appellate Practice handbook, published by Baldwin. If you don’t have it in your library but enjoy appellate work, we highly recommend it. And for years, in the section pertaining to administrative appeals taken under Ohio’s Administrative Procedure Act, commonly known as “Chapter 119 appeals,” Judge Painter’s treatise has noted that certain administrative appeals in Ohio had to be brought in Franklin County, including appeals regarding examinations and licensing by state agencies, and appeals of adjudicatory decisions by the Liquor Control Commission, State Medical Board Chiropractic Examining Board, or Board of Nursing.

Continue Reading Ohio General Assembly expands venues for administrative appeals

The COVID-19 pandemic introduced some new flexibility into the traditionally rigid legal workplace. For those working in downtown offices, the traffic on the daily commute was certainly better. And remote work options allowed counsel to take depositions from the comfort of their home offices. Got a hearing coming up on a motion? Fine, let’s conduct it via Zoom. Big oral argument coming up? No problem — the court says that can be done on Microsoft Teams. The pandemic and related stay-at-home orders certainly required some unprecedented understanding and adaptability from participants in the legal system, be they lawyers, judges, clients or court staff.

Continue Reading Two recent decisions by Ohio appellate courts caution counsel against undue reliance upon health emergencies to delay trials

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

Imagine that your client has been sued for damages in federal court. In a motion for summary judgment, you assert what you believe to be a valid and compelling legal defense, such as the plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. There are no facts in dispute regarding the defense—it presents a purely legal question for the judge to resolve before any trial takes place. Yet the judge denies your dispositive motion, and so you proceed to a jury trial, where your client is hit with a substantial verdict. As you consider post-trial motions, you may wonder: must you re-brief the purely legal defense in a Rule 50 motion — even though the judge previously denied it on summary judgment — in order to preserve that issue for appeal?

Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court agrees to resolve <em>Dupree </em>circuit split

In mid-December 2022, Larry Ebner, the well-known appellate advocate behind Capital Appellate Advocacy in Washington, D.C., published an op-ed at Law360 titled Federal Courts Should Follow Supreme Court’s Amicus Stance. In this op-ed, Ebner noted that the U.S. Supreme Court had announced revisions to its rules, effective Jan. 1, 2023, that eliminate the requirement for amici curiae to obtain the parties’ consent, or the court’s permission, to file their amicus briefs. Ebner went on to argue that the corresponding rules for the federal circuit courts (see FRAP 29) should similarly be amended to eliminate the consent requirement for amicus briefs.

Continue Reading Changing rules to eliminate consent requirements for amicus briefs – how far will they go?

Members of our firm’s Appellate Practice Group are consulted regularly by our colleagues about procedural issues arising from so-called interlocutory appeals. In other words, appeals taken (or attempted to be taken) from decisions by trial courts at some point before final judgment.

Continue Reading The tricky business of appealing from decisions granting preliminary injunctive relief

As many readers of this blog likely will be aware, the doctrine of administrative deference — the extent to which courts may properly defer to agencies’ interpretations of statutes and/or rules — has been a hot topic in recent years in the United States Supreme Court.

Continue Reading Appellate practitioners take note: Ohio Supreme Court has rejected mandatory deference to agencies’ interpretations of rules and statutes