In re Disqualification of Watson - 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 WATSON.
SAMMONS v. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ET AL.
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Watson (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Judges -- Affidavit of disqualification -- Disqualification not warranted by mere
fact that a party is the funding authority of the court -- Mere allegations
that a judge will be called as a witness in a pending case will not require
disqualification.
(No. 97-AP-030 -- Decided March 10, 1997.)
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Franklin County
Court of Common Pleas case No. 96CVH02-1550.

MOYER, C.J. This affidavit of disqualification was filed by Phillip L.
Harmon, counsel for plaintiff Arlend Sammons, seeking the disqualification of
Judge Michael H. Watson from further proceedings in the above-captioned case.

Affiant contends that Judge Watson and all judges of the Franklin County
Court of Common Pleas should be disqualified because the defendant in this
matter, the Franklin County Board of Commissioners, is the funding authority for
the court. Moreover, affiant contends that Judge Watson's former position as the
Governor's legal counsel during the time that ownership of the subject property
was transferred from the state to the county mandates his disqualification to avoid
the appearance of impropriety.

The mere fact that a party to a pending case is the funding authority of the
court in which the case is pending does not, without more, mandate the
disqualification of the judges of that court. Absent factors that demonstrate an
interest in the subject matter that mandates disqualification under the Code of
Judicial Conduct or to avoid the appearance of impropriety, I decline to establish a

rule that requires the disqualification of a judge or an entire court based solely on
the fact that a party to the case is the court's funding authority.

Further, there is no indication in the record that, in his prior employment,
Judge Watson obtained information or performed functions regarding the property
that is the subject of the underlying litigation that mandates his disqualification.
Although affiant contends that Judge Watson will be called as a witness in the
underlying case, the judge denies having information that would make him a
material witness. Mere allegations that a judge will be called as a witness in a
pending case will not require the judge's disqualification. See In re
Disqualification of Gorman (1993), 74 Ohio St.3d 1251, 657 N.E.2d 1354.

For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken
and is denied. The case shall proceed before Judge Watson.

2