Cleveland Law Library Weblog

Ohio Supreme Court Adopts Amendments to its Rules of Practice

Yesterday, the Ohio Supreme Court announced the that it had adopted various amendments to the rules that govern how cases are filed and proceed before the Court. A Press Release from the Court summarized the changes as follows:

• Rule 2.02 – Pro Hac Vice Admission – Clarifies the requirement that out-of-state attorneys must file a motion for admission before being deemed to have made an appearance in a case.
• Rule 3.02 – Filing Electronic Documents by E-mail – Eliminates filing by email because attorneys and self-represented litigants can file electronically through the Court’s e-filing portal.
• Rule 4.06 – Substitution of Parties – Directs parties on how to proceed when substituting a party is required.
• Rule 11.06 – Applications for Reopening in Death-Penalty Cases – Increases to 15 the page limit for applications and requires specific citations to the record.
• Rules 16.08 and 17.08 – Modifies the rules to permit filing a citation to relevant authority less than seven days before oral argument if the authority was issued within that timeframe.

Click here for the text of the amendments.

Ohio Supreme Court Adopts a Lot of Changes to Protection Order Forms and Corresponding Rule

The Ohio Supreme Court has adopted changes to Superintendence Rule 10.03 (governing civil and criminal protection orders) and 30 protection order forms. According to the Supreme Court's news release, these changes and the new forms will go into effect on March 1st and include the following changes:

• encouraging law enforcement to enter promptly properly issued protection orders into the FBI’s protection order database and firearms disability database
• placing in a prominent position the no abuse term in the protection order, as this is the most distinguishable characteristic of a protection order,
• underscoring the importance of providing an address that does not compromise the petitioner’s safety to receive correspondence from the court,
• expanding references to social media to clarify the no contact provision in the order,
• articulating that law enforcement officers and U.S. Armed Forces members may be exempt from firearms disability because of their jobs,
• clarifying the weapons surrender term in the order and return procedures,
• indicating the new judicial review standard for protection order proceedings before a magistrate,
• and revising the forms consistent with the no fee prohibition in last year’s reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

Governor Kasich Has Signed HB 247 Regarding Court Costs and Fees

On December 20th, Ohio Governor Kasich signed HB 247, which is designed to assist courts in the administration of costs and fines that are owed. According to an Ohio Supreme Court news release, what the bill actually does is:

"... allow clerks of court to “write off” uncollectible debt after five years; allow trial courts to suspend the imposition or payment of court costs after the court has imposed a sentence (in response to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling State v. Clevenger); and provide that court costs be assessed on each case as defined by the Rules of Superintendence for the Courts of Ohio."

With regard to criminal cases under ORC 2947.23, the courts have new powers, as follows:

"(C) The court retains jurisdiction to waive, suspend, or modify the payment of the costs of prosecution, including any costs under section 2947.231 of the Revised Code, at the time of sentencing or at any time thereafter."

Ohio Supreme Court Requests Comments on Proposed Changes to the Rules of Practice and Procedure (appellate, civil, criminal, juvenile and evidence)

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.

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.