Because Durst Kerridge maintains an extensive appellate practice in the Supreme Court of Ohio, Ohio’s courts of appeals, and the Sixth Circuit, we closely monitor all changes to those courts’ governing rules.
Effective July 1, 2026, substantive amendments to the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure and a restructuring of the Rules of Superintendence took effect. This post covers the former.
App.R. 26: What changed for reconsideration and en banc applications?
Nearly everything. Here is the before-and-after:
| Before July 1, 2026 | Now | |
|---|---|---|
| Deadline to apply | 10 days | 15 days |
| When the clock starts | When the clerk both mailed the judgment to the parties and noted the mailing on the docket | When the court’s judgment is filed by the clerk of the court of appeals |
| Response | 10 days after service of the application | 15 days after the application is filed |
| Reply | Permitted within 7 days of service of the response | Not permitted, absent a request from the court |
| Page limits | None specified for reconsideration | 15 pages for the application; 15 for the response |
| Extensions | “Extraordinary circumstances,” under former App.R. 14(B) | “Only for the most compelling reasons,” now stated in App.R. 26(A) |
| Combined filings | Practice varied by district | Reconsideration and en banc must be filed as a single document, absent a contrary local rule |
| Court’s sua sponte en banc window | 10 days | 10 days (unchanged) |
One note on the extensions row, because it is easy to get wrong. Former App.R. 14(B) set a general good-cause standard for enlarging time, but it also contained a separate sentence carving out these particular applications: an extension to file for reconsideration or en banc consideration could not be granted “except on a showing of extraordinary circumstances.” The 2026 amendments deleted that sentence from App.R. 14(B) and replaced it with the “most compelling reasons” standard now stated in App.R. 26(A). The general good-cause standard in App.R. 14(B) did not apply to these applications before, and it does not now.
A few further changes are not captured above:
- The application must explain in detail each point of law or fact the applicant believes the court overlooked or misconstrued. The rule now states plainly that an application “is not a vehicle to reargue issues previously presented.” In one recent case, the opposing party did exactly that — filed a motion for reconsideration that simply re-argued points the Court of Appeals had considered and decided.
- An untimely application filed without an accompanying motion to extend will not be considered at all.
- A combined filing must identify itself as such on the cover or first page and in the title of the document.
- The reopening provision in App.R. 26(B) was reworded in the same style, and its window runs from the filing of the court’s judgment by the clerk. But unlike reconsideration and en banc, the reopening period itself did not move. It remains 90 days, subject to good cause.
Response Deadline
Under the former rule, the response ran from service of the application, which meant App.R. 14(C) gave a party served by mail or commercial carrier three additional days. The new response deadline runs from the date the application is filed. App.R. 14(C) applies only where a party must act “within a specified time after being served.” The three-day cushion is therefore gone. Fifteen days means fifteen days.
Potential Impact on Deadline to Appeal to Ohio Supreme Court
A jurisdictional appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio must be filed within 45 days of the court of appeals’ entry of judgment. S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.01(A)(1). That 45-day period is reset only by a timely application for reconsideration under App.R. 26(A)(1) or a timely application for en banc consideration under App.R. 26(A)(2). S.Ct.Prac.R. 7.01(A)(5) and (6).
Calendaring the old ten-day window as running from the clerk’s docketed mailing will usually still land within the new fifteen-day window, but not necessarily. An application filed a day late does not reset the 45-day clock. As a consequence, if those 45 days have run by the time the court of appeals denies the application, an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court is untimely. Don’t end up like Joe Carollo, who made a $63.5 million appellate mistake.
App.R. 13: Two Pitfalls to Avoid
App.R. 13(A) now provides that documents sent to the court itself, to any of the court’s offices, to the court’s administrator, or to a clerk other than the clerk of the court of appeals in the county where the case originated “are not considered filed and will not be addressed by the court.” The staff note explains that this amendment is aimed at filers in Ohio’s multi-county appellate districts.
While the First District covers only Hamilton County, most of the other eleven districts span multiple counties, and in those districts the filing must go to the clerk of the county where the case originated — not with the court.
New App.R. 13(F) now requires that, for each person served, the proof of service identify the subdivision of App.R. 13(D) through which service was made and list the mail or electronic address, fax number, or address of the place of delivery. Documents “will not be considered” until the required proof of service has been provided. A generic “served upon all counsel of record” no longer complies.
Serve at or before filing. Another interesting amendment, App.R. 13(E) now requires service “at or before the time of filing,” replacing the former “on or before the day of filing.” The staff note is unusually candid about why: the old language allowed parties to file first and serve afterward while certifying that service had already been completed. The new language tracks Fed. R. App. P. 25(b).
App.R. 3: New requirements for the notice of appeal
- The appellant must attach a time-stamped copy of the judgment or order appealed from. App.R. 3(A).
- The appellant must serve the notice of appeal on every other party, by any method permitted under App.R. 13(D). App.R. 3(E). The First District has noted that although this requirement is new statewide, it is not a change in that court, where appellant service was already required under Loc.R. 3.1(C). The same is true of the attachment requirement.
- Each cross-appeal is now docketed under its own case number rather than sharing the number assigned to the appeal. App.R. 3(F).
- Division (F) now sets out the duties of both the trial court clerk and the appellate court clerk. The provision governing amendment of a notice of appeal moved to division (G).
A hanging chad
App.R. 4 was not amended in this cycle. It stands as it did on July 1, 2021 — and both App.R. 4(B)(2) and 4(B)(3) still direct a party who wishes to appeal a trial court’s rulings on remand to move to amend a previously filed notice of appeal “under App.R. 3(F).”
But App.R. 3(F) is no longer the amendment provision. As of July 1, 2026 it governs the duties of the clerks. The amendment provision is App.R. 3(G). Counsel moving to amend a notice of appeal should cite App.R. 3(G) and flag the stale App.R. 4(B) cross-reference.
App.R. 5 and App.R. 30
- App.R. 5 replaced “leave of court” with “permission of the court” throughout, adopting the language of Fed. R. App. P. 5. The rule applies only in criminal, delinquency and serious-youthful-offender proceedings. A defendant seeking permission to file a delayed appeal must now serve the request on the appropriate prosecutor.
- App.R. 30(A) now requires the clerk to send the parties a copy of the court’s order, opinion or judgment itself rather than a notice that it was entered. New App.R. 30(C) confirms that the clerk may “send” documents by hand delivery, electronic delivery through the clerk’s e-filing service, e-mail, fax, U.S. mail or commercial carrier.
Effective Date
These amendments took effect July 1, 2026. Under Article IV, Section 5(B) of the Ohio Constitution, the Supreme Court of Ohio filed them with the General Assembly by January 15, 2026 and filed revisions by May 1. The General Assembly did not adopt a concurrent resolution of disapproval, so the amendments took effect by operation of the Constitution. Court News Ohio’s summary is here.
A separate post will cover the restructuring of the Rules of Superintendence, which renumbered the commercial docket rules — former Sup.R. 49 through 49.12 are now Sup.R. 7.40 through 7.52 — and moved the continuance and judgment-entry provisions of former Sup.R. 41(A) and Sup.R. 7 into Civ.R. 6 and Civ.R. 58. The Supreme Court’s reference chart maps every renumbered rule.
About Durst Kerridge
Durst Kerridge maintains an extensive Appellate Practice and has achieved appellate victory at every level, including in the United States Supreme Court. Our Appellate Practice is led by Partner Paul R. Kerridge, who previously served as a Law Clerk at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the Supreme Court of Ohio. We regularly serve as lead and Ohio local counsel in significant civil litigation and appellate matters across the state.
To get in touch with us, contact Alex J. Durst or Paul R. Kerridge directly.
