Case Title: In re Disqualification of Celebrezze

Citation: 2001-Ohio-4093

Docket Number: 2001AP058

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2001-07-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Celebrezze, 94 Ohio St.3d 1231, 2001-Ohio-4093.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF CELEBREZZE. 
DZINA v. DZINA. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Celebrezze (2001), 94 Ohio St.3d 1231.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Attorney’s prior participation in a 
judge’s campaign committee is not grounds for disqualification of the 
judge from cases involving that attorney — Campaign involvement 
occurred twenty-three years previously. 
(No. 01-AP-058 — Decided July 25, 2001.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County Court of Common 
Pleas Domestic Relations Division case No. D263220. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J.  This affidavit of disqualification filed by James E. Burns, 
counsel for the plaintiff, seeks the disqualification of Judge James P. Celebrezze 
from further proceedings regarding the above-captioned case, Daniel Dzina v. 
Nancy Dzina. 
 
In support of his claim of disqualification, affiant states that opposing 
counsel previously served as chair or treasurer of Judge Celebrezze’s campaign 
committee.  He asserts that this relationship has caused Judge Celebrezze to 
demonstrate bias in favor of the defendant and cites several rulings issued by the 
judge that are adverse to his client’s interests. Previously, I have held that an 
attorney’s prior participation in a judge’s campaign committee is not grounds for 
disqualification of the judge from cases involving that attorney.  See In re 
Disqualification of Maloney (2000), 91 Ohio St.3d 1204, 741 N.E.2d 133 
(attorney was a member of a judge’s campaign committee), and In re 
Disqualification of Ney (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 1271, 657 N.E.2d 1367 (counsel 
personally solicited contributions on behalf of the judge’s campaign committee in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
the preceding election). See, also, Board of Commissioners on Grievances and 
Discipline Advisory Op. No. 92-9.  Given the fact that defense counsel’s 
involvement in Judge Celebrezze’s campaign occurred twenty-three years ago, I 
cannot conclude that the relationship cited by affiant requires the judge’s 
disqualification. 
 
The balance of affiant’s claims relate to adverse legal rulings made by 
Judge Celebrezze.  These rulings are subject to review on appeal and do not 
demonstrate bias or prejudice that warrants the judge’s disqualification.  In re 
Disqualification of Murphy (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 605, 522 N.E.2d 459. 
 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken 
and is denied.  The case shall proceed before Judge Celebrezze. 
__________________