OH · rules

Ohio Sup.R. 5.11

Individual Assignment System

activein force · 2025-11-13 – presentact-effective-date

(A) Adoption of system

Except as provided in Sup.R. 5.12 through 5.15, each multi-judge general, domestic

relations, probate, and juvenile division of a court of common pleas; multi-judge municipal

court; and multi-judge county court shall adopt the individual assignment system for the

assignment of all cases to judges of the court or division of the court, as applicable.

(B) Time of assignment

Cases shall be assigned pursuant to the individual assignment system as follows:

(1) In a civil case in a municipal or county court, when an answer is filed or

when a motion, other than a motion for default judgment, is filed;

(2) In a traffic or criminal case in a municipal or county court, when a plea of

not guilty is entered;

(3) In a civil case in a court of common pleas, when a complaint or petition is

filed with the clerk of court;

(4) In a criminal case in a court of common pleas, no later than upon

arraignment;

(5) In a delinquency, unruly, adult, or traffic case in the juvenile division of a

court of common pleas, no later than upon arraignment or initial appearance.

In all other cases in the juvenile division, when a complaint or petition is

filed.

(1) Except as provided in Sup.R. 5.12, each multi-judge general, domestic relations,

probate, and juvenile division of a court of common pleas and multi-judge

municipal and county court may adopt modifications to the individual assignment

system to provide for the following:

(a) The redistribution of cases involving the same criminal defendant,

parties, family members, or subject-matter;

(b) The direct assignment of a new criminal or delinquency case

involving a person who is currently on probation with the court or

division to the judge to whom the probation case is assigned.

(2) Any modifications shall be adopted by local rule of court and ensure each of the

following:

(a) Judicial accountability for the processing of individual cases;

(b) Timely processing of cases through prompt judicial control over

cases and the pace of litigation;

objective and impartial system that ensures the equitable distribution

of cases between or among the judges of the division.

History

Effective Date: January 1, 2018 Amended: November 13, 2025 Commentary (January 1, 2018) The individual assignment system is defined by the rule as a system whereby, upon the filing or transfer of a civil case, or upon arraignment in a criminal case, the case is immediately assigned to a judge of the court. The rule sets forth three purposes of the individual assignment system. All multi-judge divisions of the court of common pleas and all multi-judge municipal and county courts, except as provided in Sup.R. 36.012 through 36.015 are required to adopt the individual assignment system. Courts or divisions are permitted to deviate from the individual assignment system only if the modifications satisfy the three stated purposes of the system and are adopted by local rule of court pursuant to Sup.R. 5. Permissible modifications include the assignment and consideration of cases involving the same criminal defendant, parties, family members, or subject-matter. The distinguishing feature of the individual assignment system is that it places responsibility upon one judge for the disposition of cases. Once a case is assigned to a judge under this system, all matters pertaining to the case are to be submitted to that judge for determination. An exception is made where that judge is unavailable. In that instance, the administrative judge may act in the assigned judge’s absence. Under Sup.R. 36.011, the administrative judge is responsible for the assignment of cases to the individual judges of the court. Assignment may be made by the administrative judge personally or by court personnel at the administrative judge’s direction. All assignments of c ases to individual judges must be made by lot. The purpose of the random assignment, by lot, of cases is to avoid judge- shopping on the part of counsel and to distribute the cases equitably among the judges. Commentary (July 1, 2026) Rule 36.011 was renumbered to R ule 5.11 as part of the 2026 restructuring of the Rules of Superintendence.

Provenance

Source: supremecourt.ohio.gov
Retrieved: 2026-09-14
Edition: 2026-09-14
Content hash: 3a563b3cf8f5f2b595e7d84c37a647dbf761ae579c36d4a30d3f476cffa884c2

View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs