Case Title: In re Disqualification of Ruehlman

Citation: 2013-Ohio-2717

Docket Number: 13-AP-044

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-05-31T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Ruehlman, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2013-Ohio-2717.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF RUEHLMAN. 
PRUIETT ET AL. v. VILLAGE OF ELMWOOD PLACE ET AL. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Ruehlman, ___ Ohio St.3d ___,  
2013-Ohio-2717.] 
Judges—Affidavit of disqualification—R.C. 2701.03—When an affidavit of 
disqualification is filed after a decision granting judgment, a judge should 
only be disqualified if the record clearly and unquestionably demonstrates 
a fixed anticipatory judgment on the remaining issues—Affidavit denied. 
(No. 13-AP-044—Decided May 31, 2013.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas 
Case No. A1209235. 
________________________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Judd R. Uhl, counsel for defendants Village of Elmwood Place and 
its police chief, has filed an affidavit with the clerk of this court under R.C. 
2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Robert P. Ruehlman from presiding over any 
further proceedings in case No. A1209235, now pending on plaintiffs’ motions 
for contempt and to file an amended complaint.  Uhl claims that Judge 
Ruehlman’s “words and actions create an overwhelming appearance of bias and 
prejudice” and “convey the impression that the Judge has developed a hostile 
feeling or spirit of ill will and that the Judge has reached a fixed anticipatory 
judgment” preventing him from hearing the balance of the case.  Judge Ruehlman 
has responded in writing to the allegations in Uhl’s affidavit, concluding that Uhl 
has not offered the type of compelling evidence to support his disqualification. 
{¶ 2} For the reasons explained below, no basis has been established to 
order the disqualification of Judge Ruehlman. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Judge Ruehlman’s March 7, 2013 decision 
{¶ 3} The gravamen of Uhl’s affidavit is his dissatisfaction with Judge 
Ruehlman’s March 7, 2013 decision granting judgment in plaintiffs’ favor, 
invalidating the village ordinance that created the automated speed enforcement 
program at issue, and permanently enjoining the village from enforcing the 
ordinance.  An affidavit of disqualification, however, “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.  Indeed, it is well settled 
that a party’s disagreement or dissatisfaction with a court’s legal rulings, even if 
those rulings may be erroneous, does not constitute bias or prejudice and is not 
grounds for disqualification.  In re Disqualification of Floyd, 101 Ohio St.3d 
1217, 2003-Ohio-7351, 803 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 4.  The remedy for Uhl’s legal claims, 
if any, lies on appeal, not through the filing of an affidavit of disqualification.  In 
re Disqualification of Russo, 110 Ohio St.3d 1208, 2005 Ohio 7146, 850 N.E.2d 
713, ¶ 6. 
The judge’s questioning of a hearing witness 
{¶ 4} Uhl’s affidavit also contains excerpts from a January 2013 hearing 
transcript showing that Judge Ruehlman questioned a witness and then attempted 
to summarize that witness’s testimony.  Uhl fails to specifically explain how these 
transcript excerpts demonstrate bias or prejudice, but presumably Uhl believes the 
questions were improper or he disagrees with the judge’s summary of the 
witness’s testimony.  For his part, Judge Ruehlman provided additional transcript 
pages to provide context for his questions.  Regardless of the propriety of the 
judge’s questions, “it is not within the scope of this proceeding to evaluate the 
trial court’s compliance with Evid.R. 614, which addresses interrogation of 
witnesses by the court.”  Solovan at ¶ 4.  Further, according to Judge Ruehlman, 
Uhl did not object to the judge’s questions during the hearing.  “A party who fails 
to 
object 
at 
trial, 
but 
then 
raises 
an 
issue 
in 
an 
affidavit 
of 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
disqualification * * * bears a particularly heavy burden * * *.”  Solovan at ¶ 8.  
Uhl has not met that heavy burden here. 
The judge’s alleged pejorative comments 
{¶ 5} Finally, Uhl states that Judge Ruehlman’s March 7, 2013 decision 
used “extremely pejorative and unnecessary language” directed at the defendants.  
The decision states that the village’s automated speed enforcement program 
hearing is “nothing more than a sham!” and that the village is engaged in “a high-
tech game of 3 CARD MONTY [sic, Monte].”  (Boldface and capitalization sic.)  
Judge Ruehlman further wrote that the village’s program was a “scam that 
motorists can’t win,” “[t]he entire case against the motorist is stacked,” and the 
village “has another scheme up its sleeve” if the motorist attempts to argue that he 
or she was not the driver of the offending vehicle.  According to Uhl, Judge 
Ruehlman also stated at a subsequent hearing that if the village violated the 
court’s decision, “it’s going to be a chauffeur service to the Justice Center.” 
{¶ 6} Judge Ruehlman responds by stating that he uses “colorful” 
language in his decisions; he explains:  “when I issue a decision they’re easy to 
understand.  They may be a little colorful but they’re easy to understand.” 
{¶ 7} Reasonable and objective observers may question whether the 
language used in Judge Ruehlman’s opinion made it easier to understand, and 
these same observers may question whether the judge’s tone and rhetoric were 
appropriate for a judicial opinion.  As the Code of Judicial Conduct directs, 
judges should be “patient, dignified, and courteous” to litigants, lawyers, and 
others in an official capacity and should refrain from using words or conduct that 
might manifest bias or prejudice.  Jud.Cond.R. 2.8(B) and 2.3(B).  However, in a 
situation such as this, when an affidavit is filed after commencement of a hearing, 
after presentation of evidence, and after a decision granting judgment in favor of 
one of the parties, a judge should only be disqualified if the record clearly and 
unquestionably demonstrates a fixed anticipatory judgment on the remaining 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
issues that would undermine the absolute confidence of the public in the fairness 
and integrity of the proceedings.  See In re Disqualification of Nicely, 135 Ohio 
St.3d 1237, 2012-Ohio-6290, 986 N.E.2d 1, ¶ 1, 8, 19 (setting forth standard for 
reviewing an affidavit of disqualification after judge issues a final order and the 
only matter pending before the judge is a contempt motion); In re Disqualification 
of Kate, 88 Ohio St.3d 1208, 1209, 723 N.E.2d 1098 (1999) (setting forth 
standard for reviewing an affidavit of disqualification after commencement of a 
trial and presentation of the evidence has begun). 
{¶ 8} The judge’s comments here support his decision on the dispositive 
issue in the case—i.e., the validity of the village ordinance—but the comments 
alone do not convey the impression that he has reached a fixed anticipatory 
judgment on plaintiffs’ remaining contempt motion or plaintiffs’ motion to amend 
the complaint.  More importantly, Uhl, who has the burden in this affidavit-of-
disqualification proceeding, failed to set forth any argument explaining how the 
judge’s comments demonstrate a predisposition on the remaining issues.  
Accordingly, Uhl has not established that the comments clearly and 
unquestionably demonstrate a fixed anticipatory judgment on the pending matters, 
and therefore disqualification based on these comments is not warranted. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 9} “The statutory right to seek disqualification of a judge is an 
extraordinary remedy.  A judge is presumed to follow the law and not to be 
biased, and the appearance of bias or prejudice must be compelling to overcome 
these presumptions.”  (Citations omitted.)  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. 
{¶ 10} For the reasons stated above, the affidavit of disqualification is 
denied.  The case may proceed before Judge Ruehlman. 
________________________