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

  • March 27, 2017
    Case Update
    Gorsuch's embarrassing day, upcoming oral arguments in SCOTUS
  • March 20, 2017
    Taking time off
    I'm taking the week off. Have a major brief due on Thursday, plus a trial in Federal court starting next Monday. Plus, I'm pretty sure that Obama wiretapped me, too, so I'm working on getting to the bottom of that....
  • March 17, 2017
    What's Up with the 8th?
    The 8th District cases come out every Thursday. By about ten o'clock in the morning, the court will have posted the "weekly decision list" on its web site. It will give a summary of the case, usually in a sentence...
  • March 14, 2017
    Rippo and Pena-Rodriguez
    SCOTUS issues decisions on judicial recusal and biased jurors
  • March 13, 2017
    Case Update
    A SCOTUS decision on career offenders, and appellate cases on what a judge can consider in sentencing, and untimely motions to suppress
  • March 9, 2017
    A switch in time
    The court reverses itself in Gonzalez
  • March 8, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    More sentencing stories, and the right way to handle an Anders brief
  • March 7, 2017
    Case Update
    Knock and announce and the Ohio Constitution, and Anders briefs.
  • March 6, 2017
    Never mind
    The Ohio Supreme Court reverses Gonzalez.
  • March 2, 2017
    Of bright lines and bookbags
    Oral argument in State v. Oles and State v. Polk