Showing posts with label appellate jurisdiction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label appellate jurisdiction. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Case update: Myocare v. Hohmann and conditional dismissals

Earlier this year I wrote about Myocare Nursing Home, Inc. v. Hohmann, in which the Eighth District dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The parties had stipulated to a "conditional dismissal" of a compulsory counterclaim, but the appellate court ruled that Ohio law doesn't recognize conditional dismissals, and that as a result the counterclaim remained pending in the trial court and the appellate court lacked jurisdiction.

Monday, March 27, 2017

Tenth District: no jurisdiction over appeal from denial of motion for reconsideration

The reason being, of course, that motions for reconsideration of a final judgment simply don't exist under the Civil Rules. Denials of motions for reconsideration therefore can't be final orders, and the court of appeals has no jurisdiction over appeals from non-final orders.

But there is a lot more going on in this case.

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Conditional dismissals, appellate jurisdiction, compulsory counterclaims, and you

Civil procedure and appellate jurisdiction wonks may be interested in the Eight District's decision in Myocare Nursing Home, Inc. v. Hohmann. The question is whether the civil rules allow for conditional dismissals, and if so whether a conditional dismissal confers appellate jurisdiction over the order disposing of the remaining claims.

Thursday, December 8, 2016

Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic - Supreme Court limits prior holding restricting appellate jurisdiction

Yesterday the Supreme Court issued its decision in Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic, holding 6-1 that an order compelling the production of attorney-client privileged material is immediately appealable. This is good news. That such an order is appealable might seem obvious at first blush, but it was very much in doubt after the Court's holding last year in Smith v. Chen.

Opinions in brief

Quick summaries of five decisions released by the Supreme Court on December 7 and 8.

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Supreme Court case announcements, 11/9/16

The Court announced that it has accepted one new jurisdictional appeal, has accepted one new certified conflict, and has granted one motion for reconsideration and accepted a jurisdictional appeal that was previously denied.

Monday, September 12, 2016

A different approach to determining appellate jurisdiction

In Bank United v. Klug, the Ninth District reaffirmed the well-settled rule that the journalization of a nunc pro tunc order which merely "correct[s] minor typographical errors" does not extend the 30-day notice-of-appeal filing deadline provided for in Appellate Rule 4(A). Here, the order was entered on January 6, a nunc pro tunc order was entered on January 22, and the notice of appeal was filed on February 19--28 days after the nunc pro tunc order, but 44 days after the original order. The appeal thus was untimely, and was dismissed.