Ohio Loc. App. R. 16

As amended through October 29, 2024

Rule 16 - FORM AND CONTENT OF APPELLATE BRIEFS

(A) Form.

An original shall be filed in accordance with Ohio App.R. 19, stapled at the upper left margin. In the event a Notice of Appeal is consolidated with one or more trial court cases, an original shall be filed for each case number. No brief shall include a plastic cover or binder.

The text shall be typed in a medium weight, 12-point double spaced noncondensed type style such as Arial. Quotations may be single spaced. Italic type style may be used only for case citations and emphasis.

(1)Reference to the Record. Suggested abbreviations for "transcript of proceedings" and "certified copy of the docket and journal entries" are "T.p." and "Dkt.," respectively. Where documents which are part of the latter are relied upon to support the assignment of error, and where such documents consist of more than one page, citation will be to the document number assigned by the Clerk of Courts in preparing the certified copy of the docket and journal entries, followed by the page number integral to the document, e.g., "Defendant's deposition Dkt. 10, p. 50."

(2)Personal and Private Information. Briefs should not use the names of minors or individual victims or contain any personal identifiers or information. See Sup.R. 45.

(B)Content. The brief of the appellant, and, correspondingly, that of the appellee, shall consist of five parts satisfying Ohio App.R. 16, as follows:

I. Table of Contents and Assignments of Error.

II. Statement of the Case.

III. Statement of Facts.

IV. Argument.

V. Conclusion.

(1)Appendices. With the exception of those items enumerated in Ohio App.R. 16(E) and Loc.R. 16(B)(3), appendices to the brief shall not be employed.

(2)Footnotes. The excessive use of footnotes to meet page limitations for briefs, i.e., reduced font size or condensed type style, shall result in a brief being stricken sua sponte.

(3)Citations. A hard copy of any case cited in a brief that is available in electronic format shall not be attached to a brief or memoranda. In the event a copy of an electronically unavailable case is supplied with any brief, it shall not be attached again to any subsequent brief.

(a)Unavailable in Electronic Format. A legible copy of all authorities that are not available electronically shall be attached to the brief or memorandum in which they are cited and shall indicate the status of any appeal or disposition by the Supreme Court of Ohio.

(b)Citation Form. All citations to authorities in briefs or memoranda shall be in accordance with the Manual of Citations adopted by the Reporter of Decisions for the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Manual of Citations is available online at www.sconet.state.oh.us/ROD.

(c)Failure to Comply. Counsel are cautioned that a failure to comply with this rule may result in the brief being stricken on motion or sua sponte, and/or in the dismissal of the appeal.

(C)Substance.

(1)Table of Contents and Assignments of Error.

The initial briefs of appellant and appellee and any reply briefs shall contain a table of contents. The prime function of the Table of Contents is to list and index the Assignments of Error and Issues Presented for Review. It is to be noted that the full statement of the Assignments of Error and Issues Presented for Review in the Table of Contents shall be deemed a satisfactory compliance with Ohio App.R. 16 (A)(3) and (4), as applicable. See Section (C)(2) infra. The secondary function of the Table of Contents is to list and index authorities cited.

The Table of Contents shall also serve as and consist of a combined index and table of authorities, with page references for each item listed. Indented as numbered subparagraphs under each assignment of error, shall be the Issues Presented for Review applicable to that assignment. The authorities cited in support of an issue shall be set out in alphabetical order in a further indented paragraph. It is to be noted that the appellee may recast or substitute issues to support his contentions in demonstrating the absence of error.

(2)Statement of the Case. Ohio App.R. 16 (A)(5) requires the Statement of the Case to consist of three parts:

(1) the nature of the case,

(2) the course of proceedings, and

(3) the disposition in the court below with appropriate references to the record in accordance with Loc.R. 16(A)(1).

(3)Statement of the Facts.

Ohio App.R. 16(A)(6) requires a statement of facts and will be complied with by a separate paragraph headed "Statement of Facts" with appropriate references to the record in accordance with Loc.R. 16(A)(1).

The Statement of Facts consists of a recitation of those portions of the record which support the appellant's assignments of error. This Statement of Facts, demonstrated by citation to the record (see Section [A][1], supra) may be segmented under appropriate headings, where more than one issue is presented for review, to provide a factual basis for determining the applicability of each successive issue presented.

(4)Argument.

The Argument shall comprise the main body of the brief and shall be organized consistently with the Assignments of Error and Issues Presented for Review as set forth in the Table of Contents. The Assignments of Error shall be fully set forth verbatim, as shall the Issues Presented for Review, as stated in the Table of Contents.

The Assignments of Error shall assert precisely the manner in which the trial court is alleged to have erred, e.g., "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN OVERRULING APPELLANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS HIS CONFESSION FROM THE EVIDENCE." An Assignment of Error shall not be set forth as a proposition of law as envisioned by Rule VI of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

(a) The statement of the Assignments of Error is not complete without citation to that portion of the record before the court on appeal wherein the lower court committed the error complained of, e.g., "The trial court erred in overruling plaintiff-appellant's motion for summary judgment (T.p. 25) or (Plaintiff's affidavit Dkt. 50, Dkt. 100)."

(b) The issues applicable to each Assignment of Error shall be stated verbatim and in the same order as in the Table of Contents, and the argument under each Assignment of Error shall be organized accordingly. The Issues Presented for Review are akin to the propositions of law contemplated by S.Ct.Prac.R. 16.02(B)(4) and in the example found in Appendix D of the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio and may be set out accordingly.

If appellee is defending a judgment or order appealed by an appellant on a ground other than that relied on by the trial court, but does not wish to change the judgment or order, the basis for the alternative defense shall be set forth separately in a cross-assignment of error in the Appellee's Brief. See 2505.22.

(5)Conclusion. The conclusion may briefly summarize the Argument and shall state the precise relief sought on appeal.

(D)Length.

No initial and no answer brief of the parties shall exceed 35 pages in length, exclusive of the Table of Contents, Assignments of Error, Certificate of Service, and appendices, if any, except as provided in Loc.R. 11.1(D). Reply briefs shall be restricted to matters of rebuttal of the answer brief, and shall not exceed ten pages in length, exclusive of the Table of Contents, Certificate of Service, and appendices, if any, except as provided in Loc.R. 11.1(D). These maximums may be exceeded only with permission of the court granted upon written application and for good cause shown.

No Consolidated Answer Brief and Brief on Cross-Appeal of a cross-appellant shall exceed 70 pages in length, exclusive of the Table of Contents, Assignments of Error on Cross-Appeal, Certificate of Service, and appendices, if any. The portion relating to the appeal shall not exceed 35 pages, and the portion relating to the cross-appeal shall not exceed 35 pages. No Consolidated Reply Brief and Answer Brief on Cross-Appeal of a cross-appellee shall exceed 45 pages in length, exclusive of the Table of Contents, Certificate of Service, and appendices, if any. The portion that is the reply in support of the appeal shall not exceed ten pages, and the portion relating to the cross-appeal shall not exceed 35 pages. No Reply Brief of a cross-appellant shall exceed ten pages in length, exclusive of the Table of Contents, Certificate of Service, and appendices, if any.

(E)Failure to Comply. Counsel are cautioned that a failure to comply with this Rule may result in the brief being stricken on motion or sua sponte, and/or in the dismissal of the appeal, without prior notice in either instance.

The following sample "Table of Contents and Assignments of Error" containing the above-required information is in accordance with this rule. Also, there is a sample brief posted on the Eleventh District Court of Appeals' website at www.11thcourt.co.trumbull.oh.us.

TABLE OF CONTENTS AND ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................................ 1

PROCEDURAL POSTURE................................................................................................ 1

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................. 2

LAW AND ARGUMENT ................................................................. 3

FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR................................................................................................ 3

The trial court committed prejudicial error in granting defendants-appellees, John Smith and Jane Smith's, motion for summary judgment based upon its opinion that R.C. 3109.10 (strict liability of parents for assaults by their children) is a "principal offender" only statute, finding complicity does not suffice, where appellees' minor child, M.S., was convicted of aggravated murder and robbery, attempted aggravated murder with a firearm specification, and two specifications of aggravating circumstances of aiding and abetting (Dkt. 104, paragraph 3).

ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW AND ARGUMENT................................................................................................ 3

1. Did the trial court err in determining that complicity did not suffice and that R.C. 3109.10 is a "principal offender" only statute in granting defendants-appellees' motion for summary judgment, where appellees' child was an integral part of the common plan of three actors to rob and shoot (kill) the minor plaintiff and her friend and where appellees' child was inside the gas station but did not actually pull the trigger, although she was part of the plan to do so, including the robbery, shooting and getaway?

AUTHORITIES

R.C. 1.49 ................................................................................................ 4

R.C. 3109.09 ................................................................................................ 3

R.C. 3109.10 ................................................................................................ 3

Rudney v. Corbett, 53 Ohio App.2d 311 (8th Dist.1977)................................................................................................ 3

State v. Jordan, 89 Ohio St.3d 488 (2000)................................................................................................ 4

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ................................................................................................ 4

The trial court committed prejudicial error in granting defendants-appellees' motion for summary judgment, finding that the facts do not support a conclusion of negligent supervision where appellees failed to exercise reasonable control over their child, MS., when they had the ability to control but acquiesced as to her known one and one-half year long standing relationship with a known violent man engaged in criminal activity, which required a jury determination as to the foreseeable consequence of appellees' negligence (Dkt. 104, paragraph 4).

ISSUE PRESENTED FOR REVIEW AND ARGUMENT................................................................................................ 4

1. Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment, where the appellees knew and acquiesced to their minor daughter's long standing (one and one-half year) boyfriend/girlfriend relationship with a known violent man engaged in criminal activity, thus knowing that they needed to exercise control over her, had the ability to exercise control, but did not, and where they knew or should have known that the acts of their child were likely to result in foreseeable harm to someone?

AUTHORITIES

Cashman v. Reider's Stop-N-Shop Supermarket, 29 Ohio App.3d 142 (8th Dist.1986) ................................................................................................ 5

D'Amico v. Burns, 13 Ohio App.3d 325 (8th Dist.1984)................................................................................................ 4

Haefele v. Phillips, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 90AP-1331, 1991 Ohio App.LEXIS 2038 (Apr. 23, 1991)................................................................................................ 5

Huston v. Konieczny, 52 Ohio St.3d 214 (1990)................................................................................................ 5

Nearor v. Davis, 118 Ohio App.3d 806 (1st Dist.1997)................................................................................................ 4

Shupe v. Childers, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 2003CA00068, 2004-Ohio-1767................................................................................................ 4

CONCLUSION................................................................................................ 5

AUTHORITIES

R.C. 1309.09................................................................................................ 5

R.C. 1309.10................................................................................................ 5

Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24, 2006-Ohio-3455................................................................................................ 6

Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996)................................................................................................ 6

Gregory v. Abdul-Aal, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2002-T-0176, 2004-Ohio-1703 ..................... 6

PROOF OF SERVICE................................................................................................ 7

Ohio. Loc. App. R. 16

Amended effective 6/1/2022; amended effective 7/3/2023; amended effective 7/1/2024.