Case Title: In re Disqualification of Hurley

Citation: 2006-Ohio-7229

Docket Number: 06AP076

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-08-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Hurley, 113  Ohio St.3d 1228, 2006-Ohio-7229.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF HURLEY. 
QUINT v. LOMAKOSKI. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Hurley, 
 113 Ohio St.3d 1228, 2006-Ohio-7229.] 
Judges – Affidavit of disqualification – Disqualification denied. 
(No. 06-AP-076—Decided August 23, 2006.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Greene County Court of  
Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 02FS1. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Plaintiff Deborah S. Pellegrini, f.k.a. Quint, has filed an affidavit 
with the Clerk of this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking the disqualification of 
Judge Steven L. Hurley from acting on any further proceedings in case No. 02FS1 
in the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County, Domestic Relations Division. 
{¶ 2} Pellegrini alleges that Judge Hurley has criticized her for marrying 
and moving to North Carolina, and she notes that the judge has questioned an 
appellate court ruling in her favor on a child-custody issue.  She contends that the 
judge has imposed unreasonable and costly obligations on her concerning the 
support of the parties’ minor child, and she questions whether she can receive a 
fair hearing from the judge. 
{¶ 3} Judge Hurley has responded in writing to the affidavit.  He states 
that he has treated both parties impartially, and he contends that his decisions in 
the case have been grounded on the evidence presented. 
{¶ 4} I find no basis for ordering the disqualification of Judge Hurley.  
Affiant Pellegrini disagrees with some of the judge’s rulings and believes that 
they have been unreasonable, but there is no compelling evidence before me that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
those rulings are the result of judicial bias or prejudice.  Although some judicial 
decisions can be challenged on appeal, a party’s disagreement or dissatisfaction 
with a court’s rulings of law, without more, does not demonstrate bias or 
prejudice.  In re Disqualification of Murphy (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 605, 606, 522 
N.E.2d 459.  An affidavit of disqualification “is not a vehicle to contest matters of 
substantive or procedural law.”  In re Disqualification of Solovan, 100 Ohio St.3d 
1214, 2003-Ohio-5484, 798 N.E.2d 3, ¶ 4.  Judge Hurley was entitled to issue 
rulings that he felt were correct on the issues presented to him, and nothing about 
his decisions points clearly toward bias or prejudice on his part. 
{¶ 5} To be sure, Judge Hurley has used the word “questionable” to 
describe a decision from the court of appeals in this case, and he has said 
expressly to the parties that he does not agree with the decision.  Remarks like 
those can regrettably cause one party or another to believe that a judge who says 
them will not follow a higher court’s rulings on remand, and judges should 
therefore think carefully before sharing their views so openly with the parties in 
ongoing litigation. 
{¶ 6} Even so, the judge has stated in his response to the affidavit that he 
has followed the directives of the court of appeals on remand and intends to do so 
again on the remaining issues in the case.  In light of his response, I cannot 
conclude on the record before me that he is unable or unwilling to set aside his 
disagreement with the appellate court’s actions.  As I have said, a judge may 
remain on a case that has been remanded from the court of appeals.  See In re 
Disqualification of Kimmel (1987), 36 Ohio St.3d 602, 522 N.E.2d 456 (“a judge 
may preside over the retrial of a case even if that judge’s rulings of law were 
reversed on appeal”).  The facts described in the affidavit do not compel a 
different outcome in this case. 
{¶ 7} I have explained that “[a] judge is presumed to follow the law and 
not to be biased, and the appearance of bias or prejudice must be compelling to 
January Term, 2006 
3 
overcome these presumptions.”  In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 
1241, 2003-Ohio-5489, 798 N.E.2d 23, ¶ 5.  Those presumptions have not been 
overcome in this case. 
{¶ 8} For the reasons stated above, the affidavit of disqualification is 
denied.  The case may proceed before Judge Hurley. 
______________________