04.09.2014 Views

WRITING MANUAL - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

WRITING MANUAL - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

WRITING MANUAL - Supreme Court - State of Ohio

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

B. History affecting precedential value<br />

Always indicate any reversal, vacation, or overruling, even if that subsequent<br />

action is based on other grounds. Do not include any further history <strong>of</strong> a case<br />

unless it affects the case’s precedential value. Cert. denied is an example <strong>of</strong><br />

subsequent history that has no effect on the authoritativeness <strong>of</strong> a case and is<br />

therefore not used, except for a very recent case.<br />

HOW TO ADD AN EXPLANATORY CASE HISTORY<br />

<strong>State</strong> v. Veney, 120 <strong>Ohio</strong> St.3d 176, 2008-<strong>Ohio</strong>-5200, 897 N.E.2d 621,<br />

cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 2824, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2009).<br />

Morway v. Durkin, 181 <strong>Ohio</strong> App.3d 195, 2009-<strong>Ohio</strong>-932, 908 N.E.2d<br />

510 (7th Dist.), appeal not accepted, 122 <strong>Ohio</strong> St.3d 1478, 2009-<strong>Ohio</strong>-<br />

3625, 859 N.E.2d 559.<br />

NOTE: Cert. denied and appeal not accepted are useful in these two examples, in<br />

which the case is recent. Otherwise, when the time for reversal has obviously passed,<br />

do not record the denial <strong>of</strong> an appeal in a history line.<br />

<strong>State</strong> v. Lockett, 49 <strong>Ohio</strong> St.2d 48, 65, 358 N.E.2d 1062 (1976), rev’d on<br />

other grounds, sub nom. Lockett v. <strong>Ohio</strong>, 438 U.S. 586, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57<br />

L.Ed.2d 973 (1978).<br />

Hwy. Truck Drivers & Helpers Local 107 v. Cohen, 284 F.2d 162 (3d<br />

Cir.1960), aff’g 182 F.Supp. 608 (E.D.Pa.1960).<br />

But see United <strong>State</strong>s v. H<strong>of</strong>fa, E.D.Tenn. No. 11989 (May 2, 1964),<br />

conviction and overruling <strong>of</strong> first motion for new trial aff’d, 349 F.2d 20<br />

(6th Cir.1965), aff’d, 385 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 408, 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966),<br />

second motion for new trial denied, 247 F.Supp. 692 (E.D.Tenn.1965),<br />

aff’d, 376 F.2d 1020 (6th Cir.1967), third motion for new trial denied,<br />

247 F.Supp. 692, 698 (E.D.Tenn.1965), aff’d, 382 F.2d 856 (6th<br />

Cir.1967), fourth motion for new trial denied, 268 F.Supp. 732<br />

(E.D.Tenn.1967), aff’d, 398 F.2d 291 (6th Cir.1968), remanded sub nom.<br />

Giordano v. United <strong>State</strong>s, 394 U.S. 310, 89 S.Ct. 1163, 22 L.Ed.2d 297<br />

(1969), fifth motion for new trial denied, 307 F.Supp. 112<br />

(E.D.Tenn.1970).<br />

NOTE: A history line this detailed is rarely necessary or helpful.<br />

The <strong>Supreme</strong> <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Ohio</strong> 71 Writing Manual

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!