Abstract
This note will analyze special proceedings in Ohio insofar as they relate to the appealability of interlocutory orders. Because of the complex and evolving nature of the Ohio Supreme Court's interpretation of special proceedings, this note's analysis must necessarily be largely descriptive of Ohio case law. In addition, this note will highlight differences between Ohio appellate practice and federal practice in order to acquaint the reader with the dramatically different results reached by the two systems. In addition, Part II of this note will examine what is meant by the phrase "substantial right," which appears in the second prong of Ohio's final order rule. Part III will analyze the historical development of the special proceeding, from its initial statutory creation to the landmark case of Amato v. General Motors Corp. Part IV will examine a selection of post Amato cases to illustrate the shortcomings of the Amato approach. In Part V, this note will scrutinize the ideological split on the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the definition of special proceedings and its influence on special proceedings jurisprudence. In Part VI, this note will analyze Ohio's approach to the special proceedings prong of the final judgment rule and suggest an alternative. Lastly, this note will discuss the Ohio Supreme Court's most recent decisions concerning special proceedings.
Recommended Citation
Note, Special Proceedings in Ohio: What Is the Ohio Supreme Court Doing with the Final Judgment Rule, 41 Clev. St. L. Rev. 537 (1993)