In the case of Hal v. State Dep’t of Edn., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 18AP-301, 2020-Ohio-204, an Ohio appellate court held that appellate courts will not reconsider their decisions under App.R. 26 when appellants do not raise any new arguments.
In this case, a teacher was denied renewal of their teaching and principal licenses because the Ohio Department of Education (“ODE”) found that the teacher engaged in conduct unbecoming. The teacher appealed to a trial court to reverse the decision, which the teacher lost. The teacher then appealed to an appellate court and lost again. Then, the teacher made a petition under App.R. 26 for the appellate court to reconsider its decision arguing that the appellate did not properly consider mitigating and aggravating factors among other arguments.
The Ohio appellate court held that the teacher was not entitled to reconsideration under App.R. 26 because the teacher made no new arguments and App.R. 26 cannot apply if petitioners make the same arguments. The Ohio appellate court reasoned that App.R. 26 exists to prevent injustice when courts make obvious error, not to relitigate the same issues again.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing like the Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.