Appellate Advocacy Blog

Editor: Tessa L. Dysart
The University of Arizona
James E. Rogers College of Law

Tuesday, December 10, 2019

The Genealogy of Law

In Portage County Board of Developmental Disabilities v. Portage County Educators' Association for Developmental Disabilities,[1]  the Ohio Supreme Court held that a court of appeals should review de novo a trial court judgment confirming, modifying, vacating, or correcting an arbitration award.[2] This case resolved a split among Ohio’s intermediate appellate courts, some of which had held that abuse of discretion was the appropriate standard of review.[3]

But why had the split occurred? What support had the lower courts relied upon to conclude that abuse of discretion was the proper standard of review?

It turns out, there wasn’t any reasoned support for the abuse of discretion standard. The split occurred because courts and advocates had failed to trace the genealogy of the law they were citing or had simply said that abuse of discretion applied without explaining why. This shows the need for both advocates and courts to research the origin of the law being cited to ensure well-reasoned arguments and decisions.

Before the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Portage County Board of Developmental Disabilities, three of Ohio’s twelve appellate districts, the Eighth, Tenth, and Twelfth, had held that abuse of discretion was the appropriate standard of review when an appellate court reviewed a trial court’s decision confirming, modifying, vacating, or correcting an arbitration award.[4] So let’s trace the genealogy of the abuse of discretion standard in these three districts.

Ohio’s Eighth District Court of Appeals

Cleveland State University v. Fraternal Order of Police said that abuse of discretion was the appropriate standard of review.[5] The court in Cleveland State cited Citibank, N.A. v. White,[6] which said that abuse of discretion was the appropriate standard but the White court didn’t cite any support for that conclusion or explain why abuse of discretion was the proper standard.

An earlier Eighth District case, Miller v. Management Recruiters International, Inc.,[7] had also applied the abuse of discretion.[8] Miller relied on an Eighth District case, Motor Wheel Corporation v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.[9] But the court in Motor Wheel hadn’t said that abuse of discretion applied; instead, Motor Wheel had recognized that the applicable standard of review was unclear, so the Motor Wheel court reviewed the trial court’s decision under both the abuse of discretion standard and the de novo standard.[10]

Ohio’s Tenth District Court of Appeals

In Dodge v. Dodge,[11] Ohio’s Tenth District Court of Appeals said that abuse of discretion was the appropriate standard of review and cited MBNA American Bank, NA v. E. Paul Jones as support.[12] But the E. Paul Jones court didn’t cite any support or explain why it applied the abuse of discretion standard.[13]

The Tenth District also used the abuse of discretion standard in State of Ohio Department of Administrative Services, Office of Collective Bargaining v. Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio, Inc.[14] That case relied on Licking Heights Local School District Board of Education v. Reynoldsburg City School District Board of Education,[15] which in turn cited MBNA American Bank, NA v. E. Paul Jones.[16] The court in Licking Heights, in citing E. Paul Jones, said that E. Paul Jones cited another Tenth District case, Endicott v. Johrent to support the abuse of discretion standard.[17] While E. Paul Jones had cited Endicott, it did not use Endicott to support the abuse of discretion standard.[18] And Endicott did not say that abuse of discretion was the proper standard of review.[19]

Ohio’s Twelve District Court of Appeals

The Twelve District’s adoption of the abuse of discretion standard appears to stem from the decision of the Ohio Eleventh District Court of Appeals in Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. Masek.[20] Masek held that abuse of discretion was the correct standard of review[21] and cited an Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals decision, Herrendeen v. Daimler Chrysler Corp.,[22] to support the abuse of discretion standard. But Herrendeen didn’t say that abuse of discretion applied—Herrendeen didn’t even discuss the applicable standard of review.[23]

The Masek court also relied on its earlier decision in Rossi v. Lanmark Homes, Inc.[24] The Rossi court did not explain or cite support for its conclusion that abuse of discretion was the appropriate standard of review.

In Buchholz v. W. Chester Dental Group,[25] the Twelfth District cited the Eleventh District’s decision in Masek to support the abuse of discretion standard of review. In re Hamilton cited Buchholz for the same standard.[26]

These cases show the need to trace the genealogy of the law you are relying on. Doing this will allow advocates to develop arguments to support the continued application of precedent or the overruling of precedent. It will also promote the well-reasoned, consistent application of the law.

[1] 103 N.E. 3d 804 (2018).

[2] Id. at 805.

[3] Id.

[4] Dodge v. Dodge, 95 N.E.3d 820, 822 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. 2017), abrogated by Portage County Bd. of Developmental Disabilities v. Portage County Educators' Assn. for Developmental Disabilities, 103 N.E. 3d 804 (Ohio 2018); In re Hamilton v. Intl. Union of Operating Engineers, Loc. 20, 69 N.E.3d 1253, 1255 (Ohio App. 12th Dist. 2016), cause dismissed sub nom. In re Hamilton v. Internatl. Union of Operating Engineers, Loc. 20, 150 Ohio St. 3d 1413 (2017), abrogated by Portage County Bd. of Developmental Disabilities v. Portage County Educators' Assn. for Developmental Disabilities, 103 N.E. 3d 804 (Ohio 2018); and Cleveland State Univ. v. Fraternal Or. of Police, Ohio Lab. Council, Inc., 50 N.E.3d 285 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 2015), abrogated by Portage County Bd. of Developmental Disabilities v. Portage County Educators' Assn. for Developmental Disabilities, 103 N.E. 3d 804 (Ohio 2018).

[5] Cleveland State Univ., 50 N.E. 3d  at 289.

[6] 99868, 2014 WL 346740, at *3 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. Jan. 30, 2014).

[7] 906 N.E. 2d 1162 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 2009).

[8] Id. at 1166.

[9] 647 N.E. 2d 844 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 1994).

[10] Id. at 849.

[11] 95 N.E.3d 820, 822 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. 2017).

[12] Id. at 826, citing MBNA Am. Bank, NA v. E. Paul Jones, 05AP-665, 2005 WL 3485512, at *3 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. Dec. 20, 2005).

[13] MBNA Am. Bank, NA v. E. Paul Jones, 05AP-665, 2005 WL 3485512, (Ohio App. 10th Dist. Dec. 20, 2005).

[14] 89 N.E. 3d 103, 108 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. 2017).

[15] 996 N.E. 2d 1025, 2018 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. 2013).

[16] Id. (“Typically, our review of a trial court decision to confirm an arbitration award is conducted under the abuse of discretion standard. See MBNA Am. Bank, N.A. v. Jones, 10th Dist. No. 05AP–665, 2005-Ohio-6760, 2005 WL 3485512, ¶ 10, citing Endicott v. Johrendt, 10th Dist. No. 97APE08–1122, 1998 WL 212770 (Apr. 30, 1998).”).

[17] 97APE08-1122, 1998 WL 212770, at *1 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. Apr. 30, 1998).

[18] MBNA Am. Bank, NA v. E. Paul Jones, 05AP-665, 2005 WL 3485512, at *2 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. Dec. 20, 2005).

[19] Endicott v. Johrendt, 97APE08-1122, 1998 WL 212770 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. Apr. 30, 1998).

[20] 2006-T-0052, 2007 WL 1395360, at *2 (Ohio App. 11th Dist. May 11, 2007), overruled by Portage County Bd. of Developmental Disabilities v. Portage County Educators' Assn. for Developmental Disabilities, 86 N.E.3d 580 (Ohio App. 11th Dist. 2017).

[21] Id.

[22] L-00-1268, 2001 WL 304843 (Ohio App. 6th Dist. Mar. 30, 2001).

[23] Id.

[24] 94-L-046, 1994 WL 738800, at *6 (Ohio App. 11th Dist. Dec. 30, 1994).

[25] CA2007-11-292, 2008 WL 4541954, at *2 (Ohio App. 12th Dist. Oct. 13, 2008).

[26] In re Hamilton v. Intl. Union of Operating Engineers, Loc. 20, 69 N.E.3d 1253, 1255 (Ohio App. 12th Dist. 2016).

 

 

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/appellate_advocacy/2019/12/the-genealogy-of-law.html

Appellate Advocacy, Appellate Practice, Legal Profession, Legal Writing, State Appeals Courts | Permalink

Comments

Post a comment