In re Disqualification of Mitrovich - 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 Mitrovich, 101 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2003-Ohio-7358.]

IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF MITROVICH.
CITY OF PAINESVILLE ET AL. v. CITY OF MENTOR.
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Mitrovich, 101 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2003-Ohio-
7358.]
Judges -- Affidavit of disqualification -- Business transaction five years previous
does not disqualify judge, when -- Allegations of judge's "intemperate"
language must be described with specificity and particularity.
(No. 03-AP-010-- Decided March 10, 2003.)
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Lake County Common Pleas Court case
No. 02-CV-002053.
__________________

MOYER, C.J.
{¶1}
This affidavit of disqualification was filed by Eli Manos, counsel
for defendant city of Mentor, seeking the disqualification of Judge Paul H. Mitrovich
from further proceedings in the above-captioned case.
{¶2}
As grounds for Judge Mitrovich's disqualification, affiant refers to
an unrelated 1997 case, Richard M. Osborne et al. v. City of Mentor. There, Judge
Mitrovich voluntarily recused himself because he and his brother, or a company in
which they had an interest, had purchased land from Richard Osborne. However, that
transaction occurred more than five years ago and there has not been any further
business relationship between Judge Mitrovich or his brother and members of the
Osborne family. Further, it is unrefuted that in the case now before Judge Mitrovich,
Richard Osborne does not have an interest in any of the property at issue.
{¶3}
Affiant's second argument for disqualification concerns a 1998
case, Deborah M. Lane v. City of Mentor, where affiant again represented the city of
Mentor. Affiant claims that in his opinion granting an injunction against the city of

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

Mentor, Judge Mitrovich used "intemperate language" concerning the city of Mentor,
and that the court of appeals disapproved of that language in a decision reversing
Judge Mitrovich. Although affiant attached the judge's opinion and the court of
appeals' decision, affiant did not specify the alleged "intemperate" language, nor did
he indicate what he considered to be the appellate court's disapproval of the language.
My own review of the court of appeals' opinion reveals no such reference to
"intemperate language" in the opinion of the trial court.
{¶4}
An affidavit must describe with specificity and particularity those
facts alleged to support the claim of bias or prejudice. It is not this court's duty to
speculate as to what language the affiant considers "intemperate" or where the
appellate court "disapproved" of the trial judge's language.
{¶5}
For the foregoing reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found
not well taken and is denied. The cause shall continue before Judge Mitrovich.
__________________
2