Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

May 23, 2006

It sometimes amazes me how the law turns on the slightest things. One of the attorneys in my office has a medical malpractice case, and had sent out a 180 day letter under ORC 2305.113 extending the statute of limitations. Actually, being a very cautious sort, he had sent out three of them: a letter to the doctor's office, a letter to the doctor's home, and then had hand-delivered yet another notice to the doctor's office, all within about a month's period of time. The question now is, does the time for filing run from the first letter or the last letter?


That question was answered back in 2000 by the Supreme Court in Marshall v. Ortega: it runs from the last letter. Why? Because the law until 1987 referred to "a" written notice. When the statute was amended, the word "a" was left out; the law now provides that "written notice" can extend the time limit. The Court interpreted this as evidence of "the legislative intent that under the current version of R.C. 2305.11 more than one notice can be effective in extending the time limit."

Interestingly, Marshall affirmed a Cuyahoga County appellate decision. Our court did not find the "a"/not "a" distinction particularly meaningful, deciding the question on policy considerations.

I think the decision is correct, for the policy reasons; as both courts explain, the purpose of the notice provision is to extend the statute to allow counsel to have sufficient time to investigate the merits of a potential action. Allowing the time to run from the last letter, so long as that's within the original statutory period, gives no more than the law allows in the first place.

But the Supreme Court's decision highlights some of the pitfalls of textualism in statutory and constitutional interpretation. I'm not a betting man - or at least, not a good one, as my forays to Vegas have sadly shown - but if I were, I'd bet that the Case of the Disappearing "A" was more likely due to a typographical error or simple omission than to conscious design.  Lawyers are second only to literary critics in trying to milk every drop of meaning from every word.  But sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

Search

Recent Entries

  • May 25, 2017
    "Clarifying" post-release controls
    A look at the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Grimes
  • May 23, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Allied offenses, and two search cases
  • May 23, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Allied offenses, and two search cases
  • May 22, 2017
    Case Update
    Is SCOTUS looking for a forfeiture case? Plus, appellate decisions on expungement and restitution, plain error, and what a judge has to tell a defendant about sex registration
  • May 19, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th - Part II
    Decisions on lineups and prior calculation and design, and two out of eight (eight!) pro se defendants come up winners,
  • May 17, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th - Part I
    Taking a first look at some of the 8th District's decisions over the past two weeks
  • May 16, 2017
    Case Update
    Stock tips, Federal sentencing reform goes dormant, schoolbag searches, and the retroactivity of State v. Hand
  • May 8, 2017
    Case Update
    Death in Arkansas, a worrisome disciplinary decision, and appellate cases on speedy trial, arson registration, use of prior testimony, and the futility of post-conviction relief
  • May 2, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Nothing but sex
  • May 1, 2017
    Case Update
    SCOTUS closes out oral argument for the Term, the Ohio Supreme Court has seven of them this week, and we report on a decision where you'll probably want to play Paul Simon's "Still Crazy After All These Years" in the background while you read about it