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

  • April 20, 2017
    The Supreme Court takes a look at the trial tax
    And you thought this was the week you only had to worry about income taxes
  • April 18, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Remembering Warren Zevon, and the Fourth Amendment lives
  • April 17, 2017
    Case Update
    Structural error, prejudice, and police run amok.
  • April 13, 2017
    Some arguments on sentencing
    Why oral arguments can be fun, even when they're not yours
  • April 12, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Oh fun: declarations against interest v. non-hearsay. Also, the difference between not guilty and innocent, and Ohio's statute penalizing the refusal to take chemical test in a DUI case goes bye-bye
  • April 11, 2017
    Case Update
    Filibusters, and appellate cases on all the ways lawyers can screw up.
  • April 7, 2017
    Change of course
    A new approach in my client-attorney relationships
  • April 4, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    A true rocket docket, and Anthony Sowell pops up again
  • April 3, 2017
    Case Update
    Free merchant speech, an argument on Brady, another look at Creech
  • March 28, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Pro se motions, pro se defendants, and advice for deadbeat dads