In re Disqualification of Corrigan - 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

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Corrigan, 91 Ohio St.3d 1210., 2000-Ohio-104]

IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF CORRIGAN.
VILLAGE OF MORELAND HILLS v. ABRAHAM ET AL.
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Corrigan (2000), 91 Ohio St.3d 1210.]
Judges -- Affidavit of disqualification -- Affidavit of disqualification cannot be
used after lengthy proceedings have transpired in the underlying case and
party seeking disqualification was aware of alleged grounds for
disqualification -- Waiver of objections -- No evidence of bias or
prejudice shown.
(No. 00-AP-104 -- Decided December 6, 2000.)
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County Probate Court case No.
1998ADV4508.
__________________

MOYER, C.J. This affidavit of disqualification filed by James D. Abraham
seeks the disqualification of Judge John E. Corrigan from further proceedings in
the above-captioned case. Affiant's current counsel, James Pietrangelo, has filed
a supplemental affidavit in support of affiant's claim of bias and prejudice.

The underlying case is an eminent domain proceeding that has been
pending since April 1998. Because this case has been pending for more than two
and one-half years, I start with the proposition that an affidavit of disqualification
cannot be used to disqualify a judge after lengthy proceedings have transpired in
the case, especially where the party seeking the judge's removal was aware of the
grounds for disqualification from some months prior to the filling of the affidavit.
See In re Disqualification of Light (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 604, 522 N.E.2d 458,
and In re Disqualification of Belskis (1993), 74 Ohio St.3d 1252, 657 N.E.2d
1355. Here, many of the matters raised by affiant and his counsel in support of
disqualification occurred several months prior to the filing of the affidavit, which

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
was done less than three weeks before the scheduled trial. Because of the delay in
raising these issues, affiant waived his objection to Judge Corrigan's participation
on these grounds.

The balance of the allegations made by affiant and his attorney relate to
the October 26, 2000 hearing on a motion to suppress. Having reviewed these
allegations, the response of Judge Corrigan, and affidavits from other attorneys
involved in that hearing, I cannot conclude that affiant has established the
existence of bias or prejudice that mandates Judge Corrigan's disqualification.
While the judge's actions may appear to affiant and his attorney as the product of
bias or prejudice, the fact remains that Judge Corrigan has not granted plaintiff's
motion to enforce the settlement to which the parties allegedly agreed and has set
the matter for a jury trial. Judge Corrigan's refusal to sustain this motion, in view
of the affiant's objections, is an indication of his ability to preside fairly and
impartially over the balance of this case.

For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken
and is denied. The case shall proceed before Judge Corrigan.
__________________
2