In legal practice, few things trigger more anxiety than the collision of a long-awaited family vacation and a newly issued oral argument notice from the Ohio Supreme Court. As we have documented on this blog previously, the court is notoriously reluctant to reschedule arguments. Under S. Ct. Prac. R. 17.01(D), an assignment before the High Court takes precedence over nearly everything else.
We have tracked this rigid standard through various “sobering reminders,” such as the court’s denial of a continuance in Rayco Manufacturing, where counsel was required to be out of state for the adoption of a newborn. We even noted recently that even medical emergencies and bed rest are not always enough to move the needle.
However, a recent case announcement in Straub Nissan, L.L.C. v. Harris (Case No. 2024-1637) offers a new data point for practitioners. Despite the request being based on a vacation—a ground the court has historically rejected—the motion was granted.
Link to The conflict: Non-refundable European vacation vs. the court The conflict: Non-refundable European vacation vs. the court
On Feb. 11, 2026, counsel for Straub Nissan filed an unopposed motion to reschedule an oral argument set for March 24. Counsel received the scheduling notice just one day prior, but he had already booked a pre-planned, non-refundable spring break trip to Europe with his wife and two young children.
Link to The “magic words:” Sole counsel and subject expertise The “magic words:” Sole counsel and subject expertise
Why did this motion succeed where others failed? Ashton’s motion and supporting affidavit emphasized two critical factors:
- Sole counsel status: He is the sole counsel of record for the Appellee and the only attorney in his firm who has appeared on the merits brief before the Supreme Court.
- Unique expertise: He identified himself as the only attorney in his office who handles tax disputes.
Ashton argued that because no other lawyer in his firm was significantly involved or possessed the necessary subject matter expertise, his client would suffer actual prejudice if the argument date remained unchanged.
Link to The outcome The outcome
On Feb.13, 2026, the court granted the motion and rescheduled the argument for Tuesday, April 14, 2026.
Link to Practice pointer: Bench strength matters Practice pointer: Bench strength matters
This result adds a necessary nuance to our previous advice. The court often denies continuances under the assumption that the “next lawyer up” on the brief can handle the argument. However, as Straub Nissan demonstrates, if you can affirmatively show you are the only counsel and the only practitioner in that specific subject area at your firm, the court may be more inclined to find the “good cause” necessary to protect your family’s spring break.