Asking an appellate court to reconsider its decision is rarely going to be successful. Even less likely to be successful is the argument that the appellate court addressed the issues and considered the evidence and facts, but simply got it wrong. But a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision gives hope for a narrow band of motions in which the litigants argue just that.
In Jezerinac v. Dioun, Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-509, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that, when an original appellate panel included a judge that is no longer on the court, and that judge cannot therefore hear a motion for reconsideration, Article IV, Section 3(A) of the Ohio Constitution nonetheless requires that three judges be on the reconsideration panel. In other words, there needs to be a judge appointed to the reconsideration panel that is new to the case.
Now add to the mix Justice DeWine’s concurrence in State v. Gonzales, 2017-Ohio-777, 150 Ohio St. 3d 276, 81 N.E.3d 419. In Gonzalez, Justice DeWine explained that a judge should vote to grant reconsideration when the judge believes the case was wrongly decided—because it serves the expedient administration of justice to correct the error as soon as possible.
Imagine the scenario: the appellate court issues a split decision, and by the time the motion for reconsideration is fully briefed, one of the judges in the majority is no longer on the court. It seems that the newly added judge should grant reconsideration if the judge simply disagrees with the prior outcome—i.e., thinks the majority was wrong. And since, in this example, the remaining judges from the prior panel disagree, the newly appointed Judge’s “you got it wrong” determination means the court will grant the motion for reconsideration and change the outcome of the case. So, if the stars align, “the court got it wrong” might be a highly effective argument for reconsideration; in fact, in those circumstances reconsideration functions as a second bite of the appeal apple. You should consult legal counsel to determine whether you should file a Motion for Reconsideration arguing that the original panel’s decision was just wrong.
KMK Law articles and blog posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. The laws/regulations and interpretations thereof are evolving and subject to change. Although we will attempt to update articles/blog posts for material changes, the article/post may not reflect changes in laws/regulations or guidance issued after the date the article/post was published. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.
ADVERTISING MATERIAL.
© 2024 Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. All Rights Reserved
Topics/Tags
Select- Litigation
- Class Action Litigation
- Appellate Law
- Cybersecurity and Privacy Law
- Data Breach
- E-Discovery
- Securities Law
- Coronavirus
- Sixth Circuit
- Supreme Court
- Intellectual Property
- Social Media
- Trademark
- Trademark Litigation
- Bet-the-Company Litigation
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- Initial Coin Offering
- Antitrust
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Employment Law
- Workplace Accommodations
- ESI
- Employer Policies
- Labor & Employment Law
- Labor Law
- Technology
- ERISA
- Stock Drop
- GDPR
- General Data Protection Regulation
- Cryptocurrency
- SEC
- Securities Litigation
- Ascertainability
- Drug Enforcement Agency
- Medical Marijuana
- Ohio Foreclosure Reform
- Craft Brewing
- Cybersecurity Regulation
- Copyright Law
- Electronically Stored Information
- Environmental Law
- Fair Housing Act
- FLSA
- Health Care Act
- Healthcare Reform
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Proportionality
- Religion Discrimination
- Seventh Circuit
- Accommodation
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Business Process Improvement
- Cyber Insurance
- EEOC
- Employer Handbook
- Employer Rules
- Employment Litigation
- Lenders
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- NLRB
- Receivership Statute
- Telecommuting
- Unions
- E-Discovery Project Plan
- Predictive Coding
- TAR ( Technology Assisted Review)
- Evidence
- Quality Representation
- Subpoena
- Arbitration
- CAFA
- Land Use & Zoning
- Construction Litigation
- Privacy
- Statute of Limitations
- Taxation
- Federal Rule
Recent Posts
- Agency Deference Loses its Luster Under Ohio Law—Is Interpretation of Administrative Statutes Ohio's Next Legal Hot Topic?
- United States Supreme Court Clarifies Boundaries of Federal Civil Rule 60(b)
- Motion for Reconsideration in an Appeal: Sometimes the Court will Reconsider if you Argue its Initial Decision was Just Wrong
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez and the Impact on Class Action Litigation
- Questioning the Questionnaires: New PPP-Related Litigation Raises Issues for Borrowers
- "You Don't Have to Go Home But You Can't Stay Here": Updates to Ohio and Kentucky’s COVID-19 Orders Impacting Bars & Restaurants
- Kentucky Restaurants Begin Opening with Limited Capacity Amid COVID-19 Epidemic
- Ohio Restaurants and Bars Begin Soft Openings for Diners Amid COVID-19 Epidemic
- Supreme Court Sidesteps “Cy Pres” Challenge
- Golfers, New and Old - Be Careful!