Ohio: Supreme Court citation practice | Citation rule(s)


Examples from State ex rel. Kolcinko v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund, 2012 Ohio 46, 131 Ohio St. 3d 111, 961 N.E.2d 178

. . . .

{¶2} "Because the final OP & F board decision is not appealable, mandamus is available to correct an abuse of discretion by the board in denying disability benefits." State ex rel. Tindira v. Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund, 130 Ohio St.3d 62, 2011 Ohio 4677, 955 N.E.2d 963, 28. A clear legal right to the requested relief in mandamus exists "where the board abuses its discretion by entering an order which is not supported by 'some evidence.'" Kinsey v. Bd. of Trustees of Police & Firemen's Disability & Pension Fund of Ohio, 49 Ohio St.3d 224, 225, 551 N.E.2d 989 (1990).

. . . .

{¶3} In November 2009, the board of trustees upheld its previous decision denying Kolcinko's application for disability-retirement benefits. Kolcinko claimed entitlement to an award of benefits under R.C. 742.38(D)(1), which provides, "A member of the fund who is permanently and totally disabled as the result of the performance of the member's official duties as a member of a police or fire department shall be paid annual disability benefits in accordance with division (A) of section 742.39 of the Revised Code." "'Totally disabled' means a member of the fund is unable to perform the duties of any gainful occupation for which the member is reasonably fitted by training, experience, and accomplishments," and "'[p]ermanently disabled' means a condition of disability from which there is no present indication of recovery." R.C. 742.38(D)(1)(a) and (b).

. . . .

{¶7} Under R.C. 742.38 and Ohio Adm.Code 742-3-05, the OP & F board is vested with the exclusive authority to evaluate the weight and credibility of the medical evidence in determining a member's entitlement to disability-retirement benefits. Notwithstanding Dr. Poa's and Dr. Resnick's conclusion that Kolcinko was permanently disabled, they further noted that Dr. Francis McCafferty had observed that Kolcinko complained of "certain patterns or combinations of features that are unusual or atypical in clinical populations but relatively common among individuals feigning mental disorder." Dr. Poa and Dr. Resnick opined that Kolcinko had a lower whole-person impairment (12 percent) than the 15 percent figure determined by Dr. Smarty.

. . . .

Ohio Sup. Ct. R. for the Reporting of Decisions (2012), http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/LegalResources/rules/reporting/Report.pdf.

Rule 2.5. Format.

. . . .

All text of opinions of the Supreme Court shall have numbered paragraphs to assist in the pinpoint citation of specific portions of the opinion. Numbering shall exclude paragraphs of the syllabus, footnotes, headings, block quotations, and editorial content from legal publishers. In all respects, the format of opinions posted to the Supreme Court website shall conform to the conventions adopted by the Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions.

. . . .

Rule 2.6. Citation.

Citations in opinions of the Supreme Court shall follow the Writing Manual adopted by the Supreme Court.

. . . .

Rule 3.2. Supreme Court Website Designated the Ohio Official Reports.

The Supreme Court hereby designates the Supreme Court website as the Ohio Official Reports for opinions of the courts of appeals and the Court of Claims as of July 1, 2012.


Note: The manual referenced in the reporter’s rules contains detailed citation rules. By its term they apply only to the format of Ohio Supreme Court opinions. However, to quote from the manual’s preface “Although judges and lawyers are not required to conform to the Writing Guide, they are strongly encouraged to use it in writing opinions and briefs.” See Ohio Sup. Ct., Writing Manual: A Guide to Citations, Style, and Opinion Writing (2012), http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/ROD/manual.pdf.