Case ID: ohio-st-3d_138/html/1404-04.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pfeifer, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

2013-1934.
    Akron Bar Assn. v. Shenise.
   This matter came for consideration upon the Alerón Bar Association’s filing of a motion to hold Phil Trexler in contempt.

It is ordered by the court that the Beacon Journal Publishing Company and Phil Trexler show cause by filing a written response with the clerk of this court on or before five days from the date of this order why they should not be found in contempt of this court. It is further ordered that the Akron Bar Association may file a response on or before two days after any response has been filed by the Beacon Journal Publishing Company and Phil Trexler.

It is further ordered, sua sponte, that all documents filed with this court in this case shall meet the filing requirements set forth in the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, including requirements as to form, number, and timeliness of filings.

Pfeifer, O’Donnell, and Kennedy, JJ., dissent.

Pfeifer, J.,

dissenting.

{¶ 1} Even if respondent, Larry Dean Shenise, said every word attributed to him in the Akron Beacon Journal article of February 1, 2012, those statements are not evidence of any misconduct on his part. Therefore, this court issuing a show-cause order against Beacon Journal reporter Phil Trexler is a pointless act.

{¶ 2} This court now joins in the overkill in this matter, which started with Judge Paul Gallagher issuing an arrest warrant on Shenise’s 80-year-old client, Leonard Little, for failing to respond to a discovery order in a civil case, continued with deputies jailing Little on the warrant when responding to a traffic accident Little was involved in, and culminated in the Akron Bar Association pursuit of discipline against Shenise for the reported statements. This whole matter has led to a tremendous waste of resources at all levels. Exerting the judiciary’s authority over the press is a significant matter, and that power should be employed as sparingly as possible, and certainly never in circumstances as trivial as these.

{¶ 3} Accordingly, I dissent.

O’Donnell, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.