The purpose of the docketing statement is to determine whether an appeal will be assigned to the accelerated or the regular calendar.
A case may be assigned to the accelerated calendar if any of the following apply:
The court of appeals by local rule may assign a case to the accelerated calendar at any stage of the proceeding. The court of appeals may provide by local rule for an oral hearing before a full panel in order to assist it in determining whether the appeal should be assigned to the accelerated calendar.
Upon motion of appellant or appellee for a procedural order pursuant to App.R. 15(B) filed within seven days after a case is placed upon the accelerated calendar, a case may be removed for good cause from the accelerated calendar and assigned to the regular calendar. Demonstration of a unique issue of law which will be of substantial precedential value in the determination of similar cases will ordinarily be good cause for transfer to the regular calendar
Ohio. App. R. 3
Proposed Staff Note (July 1, 2019 Amendment)
App.R. 3
The amendment to App.R. 3(G) is designed to ensure that a party who wishes to challenge the assignment of an appeal to the accelerated calendar has adequate notice of the assignment before the seven-day deadline for moving to transfer to the regular calendar begins to run.
Staff Note (July 1, 2015 amendment)
App. R. 3(G) is amended by adding a new subsection requiring appellants in expedited cases under App. R. 11.2 to file a docketing statement with the notice of appeal, in order to alert the appellate court to the need for priority disposition.
Staff Notes (July 1, 2013 Amendments)
App. R. 3(C)(2) is amended to clarify that a party seeking to defend a judgment on a ground other than that relied on by the trial court need not file a cross-assignment of error to do so; instead, that party may simply raise the arguments in the appellate brief. The prior rule suggested as much, but some courts, relying on R.C. 2505.22, have refused to consider arguments in defense of a judgment in the absence of a cross-assignment of error. See, e.g., Justus v. Allstate Ins. Co., 10th Dist. No. 02AP-1222, 2003-Ohio-3913, ¶ 21; Good v. Krohn, 151 Ohio App.3d 832, 2002-Ohio-4001, 786 N.E.2d 480, ¶ 15 (3d Dist.); Zotter v. United Servs. Auto. Assn., 11th Dist. No. 94-P-0001, 1994 WL 660838, *2 (Nov. 19, 1994). Other courts, by contrast, followed the "well established" rule "that 'a reviewing court is not authorized to reverse a correct judgment merely because erroneous reasons were assigned as the basis thereof."' See, e.g., Schaaf v. Schaaf, 9th Dist. No. 05CA 0060 -M, 2006-Ohio-2983, ¶ 19, quoting State ex rel. Carter v. Schotten, 70 Ohio St.3d 89, 92, 637 N.E.2d 306 (1994). The language of the amendment to App. R. 3(C)(2) clarifies that the latter view is the correct one and confirms that the requirement of a cross-assignment of error in R.C. 2505.22 is abrogated by rule.
App. R. 3(F) is amended to clarify the procedure for amending a notice of appeal. Amending a notice of appeal is an efficient mechanism for appealing from a trial court order different from the order referenced in the initial notice of appeal without having to file a second notice of appeal and then seeking to consolidate the two appellate cases. The amendment clarifies that no leave is required to amend a notice of appeal if the time to appeal from the order identified in the initial notice of appeal has not yet lapsed under App. R. 4; this resolves a perceived ambiguity in the former rule, see Am. Chem. Soc. v. Leadscope, 10th Dist. No. 08AP-1026, 2010-Ohio-2725, ¶ 22, and is consistent with the general practice of permitting amendments during that initial 30-day time frame. See, e.g., State v. West, 2d Dist. No. 2000CA 56, 2001 WL 43110, at *1 (Jan. 19, 2001). By contrast, leave is required if a party seeks timely to appeal from a subsequent trial court order after the time to appeal from the originally appealed order has expired under App. R. 4; the decision whether to grant leave at that point is discretionary, reflecting the general reluctance to permit such amendments, see, e.g., Rickard v. Trumbull Twp. Zoning Bd., 11th Dist. Nos. 2008-A-0024, 2008-A-0027, 2008-A-0025, 2008-A-0028, and 2008-A-0026, 2009-Ohio-2619, ¶ 42, but also recognizing the potential efficiencies of avoiding a second appeal if the orders in question are inter-related. In all events, however, an amended notice of appeal may not be used to appeal from a trial court order if the time to appeal from that order has already lapsed under App. R. 4. App. R. 3(F)(2) also clarifies that the party filing an amended notice of appeal must file the amendment in both the trial and appellate courts so that both courts are aware of the scope of the appeal.