Although the distinction between motions in limine based in fact and those rooted in law is widely recognized in Ohio, courts generally use a “one size fits all” approach when it comes to preserving the issues for appeal. Under that approach, an attorney must challenge the pretrial ruling at trial to ensure that the issue will be preserved for appeal. This Article argues that Ohio should modify its practices to conform to the federal method and follow in the footsteps of its neighbors by specifying that a definitive pretrial ruling on a motion in limine will preserve the issue for appeal. In coming to this conclusion, the Article discusses a current trend in Ohio and its parallels with earlier federal cases, which culminated in a 2000 amendment to Rule 103 of the Federal Rules of Evidence that preserves definitive pretrial rulings for appeal. It then examines the pros and cons of the federal policy and the ways to determine whether the ruling on the motion was definitive or precautionary. Finally, the Article considers how a ruling on a motion in limine might effectively be appealed in cases that do not go to trial.
Michael L. Stokes,
The Ruling On A Motion In Limine: Preserving The Issue For Appeal,
64 Clev. St. L. Rev.
available at http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol64/iss1/5