Cleveland Law Library Weblog

Rules Change Oct. 1st for Practice Before Ohio Supreme 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.

Click here to find the text of the new rules, which will eventually be posted to the Court's Rules of Court page.

Court Filings Are Down in Ohio, According to Ohio Supreme Court

For the second year in a row, court filings are down in the state of Ohio. That is according to the latest Ohio Courts Statistical Summary and Report from the Ohio Supreme Court. Overall, case filings are down about 5%, with the greatest decline in municipal and county court cases. Click here to read the Court's press release summarizing the statistics.

Effective May 1, 2011, Cuyahoga County DR Court Creates New Process for Mutual Restraining Orders

Beginning on May 1, 2011, the local Domestic Relations Court for Cuyahoga County will institute new procedures for restraining orders prohibiting a spouse from returning to the marital residence and for mutual restraining orders. Under revised Rule 24, mutual orders will issue in all cases once a complaint for divorce, annulment or legal separation is filed.

Ohio Supreme Court Getting ready for Annual Update to Civil, Appellate, Criminal and Juvenile Rules

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.

Ohio Judges Propose Charging Certain Jury Costs to Litigants

As part of a legislative proposal to modify jury service rules in Ohio, the Ohio Judicial Conference would like to obtain greater power to charge the costs of impaneling juries to civil litigants who settle at the 11th hour and criminal defendants who plead guilty at the last minute. The judges would also like to clarify the rules that govern situations when jurors request in camera conferences before answering voir dire questions in public. Click here to read the proposed changes the Conference would like to make to O.R.C. secs 2313.11, 2335.28, and 2947.23.

New Juror Selection Tool for iPad Called iJuror

For those of you who conduct a lot of voir dire and have purchased an iPad,iJuror may be just the tool you need. The specs on this tool look good for keeping track of potential jurors, their information, and their biases.

ABA Reports That Pro Se Representation Is Increasing, To The Litigants' Detriment

A new study of state judges that was conducted by the American Bar Association reports that pro se representation is up across the country. Apparently, this trend is a disadvantage for both the litigants and judges. The survey shows that pro se litigants make procedural and evidentiary errors, and experts claim that judges also spend more time on pro se cases, thereby delaying court proceedings. Click here to read an article from law.com about the survey and its results. The survey was conducted by the Coalition for Justice.

Supreme Court Places Restrictions on Naming John Doe Defendants

The Ohio Supreme Court decision in Erwin v. Bryan has clarified when plaintiffs can and cannot name John Doe defendants under Civil Rule 15. The crux of the opinion is that using that designation is acceptable if a plaintiff knows who a defendant is but does not know his/her/its name in time to file to meet a statute of limitation. However, the Court will not allow parties to use "placeholders" for unknown defendants to buy time to find them after a statute of limitations has run. Click here to read the Court's press release and to find the link for the oral argument in the case.

LexisNexis and Texas Court Sued Over File and Serve Service Used Locally for Complex Litigation Docket

Locally, litigants and attorneys partcipating in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court's complex litigation docket must use LexisNexis File and Serve to access or file documents. Interestingly enough, according to law.com, a woman in Texas has sued a court and judge there, as well as LexisNexis, over a similar civil filing requirement for Montgomery County, Texas. Her suit was filed as a class action in federal district court in Houston under both the Texas and US constitutions and alleges, among other claims, due process and equal protection violations, as well as RICO violations under federal law (18 U.S.C. secs. 1961-1968). According to the article, the woman has paid almost $450 so far to access and/or file documents in her case.  Click here to see a list from the ABA indicating which courts employ e-filing rules. Click here to listen to our Law Library's Podcast containing information about the local Cuyahoga County complex litigation docket system.

Thanks to Hamilton County Ohio's County Law Library for the tip.

Federal Courts Have Updated Many of Their Forms

According to a Third Branch Newsletter, the federal courts have updated many of their court forms. Although 56 total forms were revised, some of the most important changes were made to search and seizure warrant forms and the in forma pauperis application. All of the forms are available at the US Courts website.