The two-part test
Ohio courts of appeals have jurisdiction to review "judgments or final orders" of inferior courts, as provided by law. Ohio Constitution, Article IV, Section 3(B)(2). The law that supplies the definition is R.C. 2505.02. In a case with multiple claims or parties, Civ.R. 54(B) can add a second requirement. The Supreme Court of Ohio stated the combined test in Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ.: "An order of a court is a final, appealable order only if the requirements of both Civ. R. 54(B), if applicable, and R.C. 2505.02 are met." 44 Ohio St.3d 86, 88 (1989). Appellate courts police this themselves: in Chef Italiano no party had raised jurisdiction, and the court raised it on its own motion and dismissed the appeal.
What counts as a final order under R.C. 2505.02
R.C. 2505.02(B) lists the categories. The ones that arise most often are:
- An order that affects a substantial right in an action and in effect determines the action and prevents a judgment, (B)(1).
- An order that affects a substantial right made in a special proceeding or upon a summary application after judgment, (B)(2).
- An order that vacates or sets aside a judgment or grants a new trial, (B)(3).
- An order granting or denying a provisional remedy, but only if it in effect determines the action as to that remedy and the appealing party would not have a meaningful or effective remedy by appeal after final judgment, (B)(4).
- An order determining whether an action may be maintained as a class action, (B)(5).
"Provisional remedy" is defined to include proceedings for a preliminary injunction, attachment, discovery of privileged matter, and suppression of evidence. R.C. 2505.02(A)(3). Both prongs of (B)(4) must be shown; an order that can be fully corrected after trial is not appealable now.
Civ.R. 54(B) cannot make a nonfinal order final
Civ.R. 54(B) allows final judgment on fewer than all claims or parties "only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay." Without that determination, a partial ruling does not terminate the action and remains subject to revision until final judgment. But the language is not a substitute for finality. In Chef Italiano, one order carried the "no just reason for delay" language yet was not final because claims against the same defendant remained pending; it was not appealable "regardless of the presence of Civ. R. 54(B) language." 44 Ohio St.3d at 89. A second order fully resolved the claims against one party but lacked the language, so "the order, though final, is not appealable." Id.
Timing the notice of appeal
A notice of appeal from an order that is final upon entry must be filed within 30 days of that entry. App.R. 4(A)(1). Timely post-judgment filings listed in App.R. 4(B)(2), including a Civ.R. 50(B) motion, a Civ.R. 59 new trial motion, objections to a magistrate's decision, a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, a motion for attorney fees, and a motion for prejudgment interest, restart the clock from the order resolving the last of them. Where an appeal is permitted before all claims are resolved (other than under Civ.R. 54(B)), App.R. 4(B)(5) allows the notice within 30 days of the order or of the judgment disposing of the remaining claims.
Common mistakes
- Treating 54(B) language as a cure. Run the R.C. 2505.02 analysis first.
- Ignoring pending motions. A pending fee or prejudgment interest motion changes when the appeal time runs.
- Missing a provisional remedy window. Evaluate (B)(4) orders, such as orders compelling disclosure of privileged material, as soon as they are entered.
- Calendaring from the wrong date. The time runs from entry of the judgment under Civ.R. 58(A), not from the announcement of a decision; App.R. 4(A)(3) extends it only when the clerk has not completed service within the Civ.R. 58(B) period. Once jurisdiction is secure, see standards of review for the merits.
Recent analysis
Civ.R. 65.1(G) Objections in Ohio Protection Order Appeals (2026)
A.A. v. S.P., 2026-Ohio-4205
A party who appeals a civil protection order without first filing the objections Civ.R. 65.1(G) requires does not lose appellate jurisdiction, but forfeits review of the alleged errors that could have been raised by objection, and plain-error review is not available as a substitute. Here, that meant no jurisdictional dismissal, but an affirmance of the protection order.
Ohio Final Appealable Orders: One Final Order Does Not Revive Others
Garg v. Jenkins, 2026-Ohio-2936
An appeal from an order appointing a receiver is final only as to the receivership, so it cannot carry assignments of error aimed at earlier settlement, injunction, and fee rulings. If those rulings were final, the App.R. 4(A) time to appeal them had expired; if not, the receivership order did not make them final.
Ohio App.R. 5(A): Crime Victims Cannot Seek a Delayed Appeal
State v. Barnes, 2026-Ohio-2750
A crime victim appealing the denial of restitution is bound by the 30-day deadline in App.R. 4(A), and App.R. 5(A) offers delayed appeals only to defendants. A victim who voluntarily dismissed a timely appeal could not revive it years later through constitutional arguments, and the court refused to rewrite the rule by decision.
Published for Ohio attorneys; not legal advice. Rules and statutes change, so confirm current text before relying on it.