WRITING MANUAL - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

this matter. I believe that Cicco was not properly decided and, accordingly, I
continue to adhere to my dissent therein”).
C. Concurring in part and dissenting in part
This type of separate opinion is fully described in its label. For an example, see
State v. Claytor, 61 Ohio St.3d 234, 247, 574 N.E.2d 472 (1991) (Resnick, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“I concur with the majority in the
affirmance of the convictions, but must respectfully dissent from its reversal of
the death penalty”). The “concurring” and “dissenting” points in this kind of
opinion relate only to the judgment. In other words, an opinion that concurs
wholly in the judgment cannot be labeled a concurrence in part and dissent in
part.
D. Dissenting
A dissenting opinion is written to express disagreement with the majority. A
dissenter may agree with some of the majority’s analysis, but to be properly
labeled a dissent, the opinion must disagree with the judgment. E.g., Morgan v.
Children’s Hosp., 18 Ohio St.3d 185, 190-192, 480 N.E.2d 464 (1985) (Holmes,
J., dissenting) (disagreeing with the majority’s reversal of the judgment of the
court of appeals and expressing the belief that the appellate court did not err in
refusing to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur).
E. Concurring in syllabus and judgment
This type of separate opinion is described in its label. E.g., Cater v. Cleveland, 83
Ohio St.3d 24, 34, 697 N.E.2d 610 (1998) (Moyer, C.J., concurring in syllabus
and judgment) (agreeing with the majority’s judgment answering the certified
question in the affirmative and with the principle expressed in the syllabus, but
disagreeing with the application of that principle to the case before the court).
F. Other categories
These are the five main categories of separate opinions. Most separate opinions
fall into one of the five. Others exist that are used less often.
The Supreme Court of Ohio 154 Writing Manual