Case Title: In re Disqualification of Parrott

Citation: 2001-Ohio-4101

Docket Number: 2001AP004

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-02-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Parrott, 94 Ohio St.3d 1223, 2001-Ohio-4101.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF PARROTT. 
HILDRETH MFG., LLC ET AL. v. SEMCO, INC. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Parrott (2001), 94 Ohio St.3d 1223.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Judge not disqualified by mere fact that 
he is newly designated to preside over a case from which another judge 
has recused himself and chooses to discuss with the parties issues that 
may have been addressed by the predecessor judge — Appeal may be 
appropriate remedy. 
(No. 01-AP-004 — Decided February 6, 2001.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Marion County Court of Common Pleas 
case No. 99CV0195. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J.  This affidavit of disqualification filed by Donell R. Grubbs, 
counsel for plaintiff, seeks the disqualification of Judge Richard Parrott from 
further proceedings regarding the above-captioned case.  Judge Parrott was 
assigned by Chief Justice Moyer after the original trial judge recused himself 
from the underlying case. 
 
Affiant’s claim of disqualification is based on comments made by Judge 
Parrott at the initial pretrial conference that he conducted with the parties on 
January 12, 2001.  The essence of affiant’s claim of bias and prejudice on the part 
of Judge Parrott is contained in paragraph 47 of the affidavit, wherein he asserts 
that the judge’s comments and conduct at the pretrial conference have “left every 
indication that [Judge Parrott] would freely reconsider each and every one of the 
previous rulings made by [the prior trial judge] * * *.” 
 
Contrary to affiant’s assertions, the mere fact that a trial judge, who is 
newly designated to preside over a case from which another judge has recused, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
chooses to discuss with the parties issues that may have been addressed by the 
predecessor judge does not demonstrate bias or prejudice on the part of that judge 
or create an appearance of impropriety.  Affiant simply speculates that by raising 
these issues with the parties at an initial pretrial conference, the judge intends to 
overturn the rulings made by the prior judge.  The record before me neither 
supports such speculation nor contains evidence demonstrating bias or prejudice 
on the part of Judge Parrott. 
 
Having assumed responsibility for a case, such as this, that has been 
pending for a lengthy period of time, Judge Parrott is free to conduct those 
proceedings in the manner he sees fit, within the confines of the applicable law.  
Should the judge choose to reconsider legal and procedural matters addressed by 
the predecessor judge, affiant’s appropriate remedy is to appeal those rulings, not 
to seek the judge’s disqualification without clear evidence of bias or prejudice. 
 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken 
and is denied.  The case shall proceed before Judge Parrott. 
__________________