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

As we approach the end of an election year that includes multiple Ohio Supreme Court races, we know that the Justices of the Ohio Supreme Court and their law clerks are hard at work drafting opinions in all cases that have already been orally argued. This diligence is so that the court’s opinions in those cases can be voted on and released before the election may cause changes to the bench in January. We can expect several eventful days between now and the end of the year, when a flurry of consequential new opinions in pending cases surely will be issued.

Tuesday, October 11, was one of those eventful days.

Continue Reading An eventful day at the Ohio Supreme Court

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

Ohio’s final appealable order statute, Ohio Revised Code Section 2505.02, is complex and fraught with traps for the unwary. It can be difficult for counsel to discern or advise their clients with any high degree of confidence whether a given interlocutory decision by a trial judge is subject to immediate appeal, or whether that fight must await an appeal after final judgment. One specific context in which this vexing issue can arise relates to discovery orders compelling the production of allegedly privileged information, or the production of information potentially subject to the attorney work-product doctrine.
Continue Reading Appealing discovery orders compelling production of confidential information

On March 16, 2022, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in Rachel Davis v. Tammie Nathaniel, a case in which a biological aunt was seeking companionship status and visitation of her sister’s three children, who were adopted by another aunt when their mother passed away in 2013.
Continue Reading A pain worse than losing: Dismissal for lack of a final appealable order

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

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?