In re Disqualification of Miller - 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 MILLER.
CORUM 1986-1 PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT DRILLING PARTNERSHIP ET AL. v. HOPCO RESOURCES,
INC.
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Miller (1997), 81 Ohio St.3d 1209.]
Judges -- Affidavit of disqualification -- Disqualification not required where judge has
"personal dating relationship" with a member of the same firm as counsel for the
plaintiffs -- Canon 3(C)(1)(d)(ii) not violated.
(No. 97-AP-045 -- Decided April 14, 1997.)
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Franklin County
Court of Common Pleas case No. 96CVH-04-2688.

MOYER, C.J. This affidavit of disqualification was filed by John Keller, counsel for
defendant, seeking the disqualification of Judge Nodine M. Miller from further proceedings in
the above-captioned case.

Affiant claims that Judge Miller should be disqualified from the pending case because she
has a "personal dating relationship" with a member of the same law firm as counsel for the
plaintiffs in the underlying case. Affiant asserts that this relationship requires Judge Miller's
disqualification pursuant to Canon 3(C)(1)(d)(ii) of the Code of Judicial Conduct and because
her impartiality in this case might reasonably be questioned.

Canon 3(C)(1)(d)(ii) mandates a judge's disqualification from a pending case where a
judge's spouse acts as a lawyer in a pending proceeding before that judge. In applying this
provision, the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, in Advisory Opinion No.
91-8, held that a judge's disqualification is not required where an attorney who practices law with
the judge's spouse appears before the judge. Regardless of the nature and extent of Judge
Miller's relationship with an attorney who practices law in the plaintiffs' law firm, there is no
indication that this attorney is serving as counsel in the underlying case. Accordingly, Judge
Miller's disqualification is not warranted by Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and I
cannot conclude, based on the affidavit filed by counsel for the defendant, that there exists a
reasonable question regarding Judge Miller's impartiality in this matter.

The affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken and is denied. The case shall
proceed before Judge Miller.