According to the December issue of the ABA Journal, the federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has passed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as the court most reversed by the United States Supreme Court. Since the Fall of 2005, the 6th Circuit has apparently been reversed 31 of 38 times, or 81.6% of the time. The 9th Circuit runs a close second with a reversal rate of 100 of 128 cases, or 78.1%. The reversal rate for the 6th Circuit's 2011-2012 term was 5 of 5, and the article says that habeas cases have been a big issue for the 6th Circuit over the years. Unfortunately, the 6th Circuit judges did not respond to an interview request by the deadline for the ABA Journal article.
The Ohio Supreme Court is requesting comments until November 13th on proposed changes to the Rules of Practice and Procedure, including appellate, civil, criminal, juvenile and evidence rules. According to the Court's news release,
"The proposed amendments concern changes to the rules of appellate procedure, civil procedure, criminal procedure, juvenile procedure and the Ohio Rules of Evidence.
Many of the proposed changes target inconsistencies, allow for electronic means of service, remove outdated concepts, or move certain rules to other sections that make more sense. There are, however, a few substantive changes to existing rules.
Proposed amendments to Civ. R. 4.4 and Juv. R. 16 would make it clear that service by posting can be used in initial actions and expand it to post-decree matters. In addition to the traditional “posting” of a notice on the courthouse bulletin board, service would use the county clerk of court’s website if it exists, although the amendments don’t require electronic posting.
Amendments to Civ. R. 10(D)(2) and Evid. R. 601 seek to enhance the affidavit of merit requirement and clarify who qualifies as an expert in a medical claim. The amendments distinguish between medical malpractice cases and other medical, dental, optometric or chiropractic claims. An amendment to Evid. R. 601 would require experts to have devoted three-quarters of their professional time to active clinical practice at the time of the event giving rise to the claim."
Click here to follow the link to view the text of the proposed amendments and for the address for the submission of comments. Assuming no problems or changes occur, these proposed amendments would go into effect on July 1, 2013.
The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals is honored to host a session of the Ohio Supreme Court at the Cuyahoga County Courthouse today, Wednesday, September 26, 2012. Public, private, and home-schooled students from Cuyahoga County were invited to attend and participate. After a Q & A session with the Justices, the students will listen to one (1) of four (4) oral arguments scheduled for the morning and then met with the case attorneys for a debriefing. The Librarian will then provide tours to the students and their teachers to showcase the Courthouse treasures being featured this year in honor of the building’s centennial.
During their visit to Cleveland, the Justices also held session at Case Western’s Law School yesterday, on Tuesday, September 25th and enjoyed a reception at the Courthouse Rotunda on Monday night hosted by the Cleveland Metropolitan Bar Association. Not surprisingly, most of Cuyahoga County’s judiciary was in attendance. The Librarian was also fortunate enough to be able to attend and meet the Justices.
For those with an interest in history, the Ohio Supreme Court has been touring Ohio since 1987, when Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer initiated the Off-Site Court Program in honor of the bicentennial of the United States Constitution. The last time the Ohio Supreme Court came to Cuyahoga County was in 1997, when the Court held session at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, but the Justices have not been to the Cuyahoga County Courthouse since 1988. To date, the program has allowed almost 30,000 students to observe Ohio Supreme Court proceedings and meet the Justices.
The Ohio 8th District Court of Appeals is seeking comments until May 18th on proposed Amendments to Local Rules 3 (costs), 14 (extensions of time), 21 (oral argument) and 45 (fees for extraordinary writs). According to the Court's press release, comments on the proposed changes can be send to email@example.com May 18th.
As part of helping someone with appellate research this week, I came across a great summary of en banc decisions from the 8th District Court of Appeals for the period 2010 through July 2011. Although the Court provides a disclaimer that the summaries are not legal advice or opinions, some of the summaries are actual journal entries issued by the Court. Click here for a link to a location for accessing full text opinions of the Court.
A reminder from the Ohio Supreme Court indicates that the following procedural changes will take effect on October 1st for practice before the Court:
Changes to Rule 1.2 that specify a motion for pro hac vice admission (mandatory for out-of-state attorneys) shall follow the requirements of sections a-e of Gov. Bar R. XII(2)(A)(6), including the required affidavit.
Changes to Rule 2.2 that establish that the time to appeal to the Supreme Court is tolled (placed on hold) pending the outcome of a sua sponte en banc (consisting of all members of the court) consideration by an appeals court.
Changes to Rule 8.5 that require copies of jurisdictional memoranda and merit briefs to be single-sided and reduce the number of copies required for jurisdictional memoranda, complaints in original actions and evidence in original actions.
Changes to Rule 18.3 that requires the Clerk to notify all parties or counsel upon the filing of a certified question of state law.
Having raised almost all of the funds it had hoped, Cleveland-Marshall is opening a brand new, $1 million dollar trial courtroom with high-tech like that used in the local federal district courthouse. CSU plans to use the room to educate students about the trial process and rent the room to lawyers and jury consulting firms who want to conduct mock trials and/or practice witness testimony. Apparently, naming rights are still available for the room itself and several components of the room, including the judge's chambers and the jury deliberation room. Interestingly, this room is unique among Ohio law schools and rare across the country, but Jones Day's Cleveland office has a trial courtroom of its own that it uses for practicing for oral arguments, among other things.
The Ohio Supreme Court has just issued a new 16-page Guide for Counsel Presenting Oral Arguments before the Court. The Guide contains information on who may argue cases, preparing for oral argument, timing on when to arrive at court, court etiquette, effective presentation skills, tips for responding to questions, managing your time, courtroom partcipants, and opinion releases. The Guide also contains a map of the Courtroom and a list of all of the justices. All in all, it is a handy one-stop shop for key information on presenting an argument before the court.
The Ohio Supreme Court is getting a head start on annual updates to the rules governing civil, appellate, criminal and juvenile practice in Ohio. Through November 2nd, the Court is accepting comments on proposed changes which would include rules on official transcripts for appeal, oral argument scheduling, magistrate qualifications, and rules for juvenile proceedings. Click here to read the Court's press release, which contains a link where you can read the text of the proposed rules.