Ohio Sup.R. 5.01

History

Effective Date: July 1, 1997 Amended: January 1, 2017 Commentary (July 1, 2026) Rule 38 was renumbered to Rule 5.01 as part of the 2026 restructuring of the Rules of Superintendence. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETION OF CASE INVENTORY New Judge Inventory. 1. Within three months of the date of a judge taking office to the court of appeals, court of common pleas, municipal court, or county court, the judge shall be responsible for the completion of a physical or electronic case inventory, as applicable, of all pending cases. 2. A case inventory involves actually reviewing the physical case files, if the court maintains paper files, or the electronic case files, if the court maintains electronic files through a case management system. A judge decides whether reviewing closed or inactive cases is necessary; however, pending cases must be reviewed. A computer-generated list of pending cases may be used to identify the pending cases which must be physically or electronically retrieved and reviewed. 3. Once the physical or electronic case files, as applicable, are retrieved, a judge should review each file and do the following: a. Identify cases in which a conflict of interest exists and therefore must be reassigned to another judge of the court or assigned to a visiting judge; b. Identify cases that lack a next scheduled event date; c. Identify cases that should be terminated or closed for purposes of reporting on the Supreme Court of Ohio Statistical Report Form; d. Identify cases that are ripe for settlement or resolution prior to the scheduled trial date; e. Identify cases that have been incorrectly classified on a previous report. 4. A judge shall document completion of the case inventory in the space provided on the applicable statistical report form by indicating the date the most recent case inventory was completed. 5. A judge may amend any report the judge’s predecessors previously submitted. For example, a case inventory performed pursuant to Sup.R. 5.01 might reveal cases that are pending that were not previously being reported as such or cases that had been previously reported as pending which in fact have been terminated. In these and similar instances, the report preparer (if other than the judge) should confer with the reporting judge to determine the best solution for resolving the discrepant pending case counts or contact the Case Management Section for assistance. The most important goal is to ensure good quality data going forward. Annual Case Inventory. 1. The judge shall be responsible for annually completing a physical or electronic case inventory, as applicable, of all pending cases. 2. A case inventory involves actually reviewing the physical case files, if the court maintains paper files, or the electronic case files, if the court maintains electronic files through a case management system. A judge decides whether reviewing closed or inactive cases is necessary; however, pending cases must be reviewed. A computer-generated list of pending cases may be used to identify the pending cases which must be physically or electronically retrieved and reviewed. 3. Once the physical or electronic case files, as applicable, are retrieved, a judge should review each file and do the following: a. Identify cases that lack a next scheduled event date; b. Identify cases that should be terminated or closed for purposes of reporting on the Supreme Court of Ohio Statistical Report Form; c. Identify cases that are ripe for settlement or resolution prior to the scheduled trial date; d. Identify cases that have been incorrectly classified on a previous report. 4. A judge shall document completion of the case inventory in the space provided on the applicable statistical report form by indicating the date the most recent case inventory was completed. 5. A judge may amend any report the judge’s predecessors previously submitted. For example, a case inventory performed pursuant to Sup.R. 5.01 might reveal cases that are pending that were not previously being reported as such or cases that had been previously reported as pending which in fact have been terminated. In these and similar instances, the report preparer (if other than the judge) should confer with the reporting judge to determine the best solution for resolving the discrepant pending case counts or contact the Case Management Section for assistance. The most important goal is to ensure good quality data going forward. Rules 5.02 through 5.09 are reserved for future use.