In re Disqualification of Fisher - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF FISHER.
DEROSA v. DEROSA ET AL.
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Fisher (1996), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Judges -- Affidavit of disqualification -- Recusal of one judge of a multi-judge
division, with reassignment without hearing of another judge by
administrative judge of that division, does not impute bias, prejudice, or an
appearance of impropriety to the judge to whom case is assigned.
(No. 96-AP-194-- Decided December 16, 1996.)
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas,
Division of Domestic Relations, case No. D-240969.

MOYER, C.J. This affidavit of disqualification was filed by Sally DeRosa
seeking the disqualification of Retired Judge Stanley M. Fisher, sitting by
assignment in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Division of
Domestic Relations, from further proceedings in the above-captioned case.

Affiant alleges that Judge Fisher is biased and prejudiced against her and in
favor of the defendant. In support of this claim, affiant cites several actions and
statements allegedly made by Judge Fisher during pretrial proceedings in this case.
She further notes that this case, which originally was assigned to Judge James P.
Celebrezze, was reassigned to Judge Fisher by the administrative judge of the
division following Judge Celebrezze's recusal, and alleges that the recusal and
reassignment occurred without a hearing, which demonstrates a strong appearance
of impropriety. Affiant also asserts that Judge Fisher denied her recent motion for
a change of venue without conducting a hearing on the motion.

Disagreement or dissatisfaction with a judge's rulings does not constitute
bias or prejudice and is not grounds for a judge's disqualification. In re
Disqualification of Murphy (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 605, 522 N.E.2d 459. The fact

that one judge of a multi-judge division recuses himself from a pending case and
that the administrative judge of that division reassigns that case without a hearing
does not impute bias, prejudice, or an appearance of impropriety to the judge to
whom the case is assigned. Similarly, a judge's denial of a motion for a change of
venue without conducting a hearing is a matter subject to review on appeal and
does not demonstrate bias or prejudice on the part of the judge. This is
particularly true where, as here, the motion was filed several months after the
affiant elected to file her case in Cuyahoga County.

The balance of affiant's claims does not support a finding of bias, prejudice,
or other interest that mandates Judge Fisher's disqualification from this case.

For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken
and is denied.

2