In re Disqualification of Callahan - 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 CALLAHAN.
WOODMAN v. MCMONAGLE.
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Callahan (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.]
Judges -- Affidavit of disqualification -- Allegation of error in judge's 1996
campaign finance report filed by the judge's judicial campaign committee
-- Chief Justice's authority to rule on affidavits of disqualification does not
extend to ruling on alleged violations of campaign finance laws --
Cuyahoga County judges disqualified when the defendant in the underlying
case is a sitting common pleas judge of Cuyahoga County.
(No. 97-AP-140 -- Decided October 3, 1997.)
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County
Court of Common Pleas case No. 334333.

MOYER, C.J. This affidavit of disqualification was filed by plaintiff James
P. Woodman seeking the disqualification of Judge Kenneth R. Callahan from
further proceedings in the above-captioned case.

Affiant alleges that Judge Callahan should be disqualified from the
underlying proceedings because of a claimed error in a 1996 campaign finance
report filed by the judge's judicial campaign committee. However, affiant fails to
allege the manner in which the alleged error creates a bias, prejudice, or other
interest on the part of Judge Callahan that mandates his disqualification from this
case.

The authority of the Chief Justice in considering affidavits of
disqualification is limited to determining the existence of a bias, prejudice, or
other interest that mandates a judge's disqualification from a pending case. This
authority does not extend to ruling on alleged violations of campaign finance laws.
Rather, these allegations are more appropriately addressed in the forums

established by state law for the consideration of potential campaign violations.
Absent some affirmative indication that the alleged violation reflects a bias or
prejudice on the part of Judge Callahan, I cannot conclude that Judge Callahan's
disqualification is warranted for the reasons cited by affiant.

However, the defendant in the underlying case is another judge of the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. In earlier cases, I have held that a
judge should be disqualified from a pending case in which another judge from the
same county is a party. See In re Disqualification of McMonagle (1990), 74 Ohio
St.3d 1226, 657 N.E.2d 1338 (defendant in the criminal action was a sitting judge
of the same division of the common pleas court in which the case was pending); In
re Disqualification of Calabrese (1991), 74 Ohio St.3d 1233, 657 N.E.2d 1342
(plaintiff in libel action pending in common pleas court was a sitting judge of a
municipal court in the same county); In re Disqualification of Friedland (Sept. 30,
1991), No. 91-AP-150, unreported (civil action pending in general division of
common pleas court; a judge of the domestic relations division was a third-party
defendant); In re Disqualification of Celebrezze (June 30, 1992), No. 92-AP-075,
unreported (defendant in the domestic relations action was a sitting judge of the
common pleas court, general division). In view of the standard established in
these cases, I conclude that Judge Callahan and all judges of the Cuyahoga County
Court of Common Pleas are disqualified from the above-captioned case. I will
assign a judge from outside Cuyahoga County to preside in this action.

2