Opinion

Vorisek v. Village of North Randall

  • 64 Ohio St. 2d 62
  • 18 Ohio Op. 3d 296
  • 413 N.E.2d 793
  • 1980 Ohio LEXIS 837
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Dec 10, 1980
Status
Published
Author
Brown
On the bench
Brown, Celebrezze, Dowd, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney
Cited by
13 cases
Authority
More cited than 15.1%

applying Drake to local rules

How later courts described this case

  • applying Drake to local rules

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Paul W. Brown, J.,

concurring. The local rule at issue in the instant cause, requiring a Civil Appeal Statement, is consistent with the Appellate Rules, since it is an additional requirement that merely supplements other rules. The imposition of this requirement, however, raises an issue as to how far local courts can go in placing additional burdens upon the litigants’ attorneys. This Civil Appeal Statement contains 13 requirements, including a listing of the issues presented for *66 review and the relief sought in the Court of Appeals. These requirements appear reasonable and useful to the Court of Appeals and the appellant has not demonstrated them to be otherwise.

Although the instant cause does not directly raise this issue, it is clear that at some point the value of these additional filings must be weighed against the burden they place on the litigants. The federal courts have recognized that these required local filings can be carried to impermissible extremes. McCargo v. Hedrick (C.A. 4, 1976), 545 F. 2d 393 . Local courts can not be given carte blanche authority to enact layers of additional rules imposing greater and greater requirements simply as they see fit. 4

In this cause, however, appellants have not met the burden of demonstrating an invalidity in this rule of that nature.

In addition to reviewing the utility of such a rule as compared to the burden it places upon litigants, the appropriateness of the sanction for a failure to comply must be scrutinized. The need for an efficient judiciary must be weighed against the sound public policy of deciding cases on their merits. Reizakis v. Loy (C.A. 4, 1974), 490 F. 2d 1132, 1135 ; Ag Rancho Equipment Co. v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc. (1979), 123 Ariz. 122, 123-24 , 598 P. 2d 100 .

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.