Case Title: In re Disqualification of Mitrovich

Citation: 2003-Ohio-7358

Docket Number: 03AP010

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2003-03-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Mitrovich, 101 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2003-Ohio-7358.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF MITROVICH. 
CITY OF PAINESVILLE ET AL. v. CITY OF MENTOR. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Mitrovich, 101 Ohio St.3d 1214, 2003-Ohio-
7358.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Business transaction five years previous 
does not disqualify judge, when — Allegations of judge’s “intemperate” 
language must be described with specificity and particularity. 
(No. 03-AP-010— Decided March 10, 2003.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Lake County Common Pleas Court case 
No. 02-CV-002053. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶1} 
This affidavit of disqualification was filed by Eli Manos, counsel 
for defendant city of Mentor, seeking the disqualification of Judge Paul H. Mitrovich 
from further proceedings in the above-captioned case. 
{¶2} 
As grounds for Judge Mitrovich’s disqualification, affiant refers to 
an unrelated 1997 case, Richard M. Osborne et al. v. City of Mentor.  There, Judge 
Mitrovich voluntarily recused himself because he and his brother, or a company in 
which they had an interest, had purchased land from Richard Osborne.  However, that 
transaction occurred more than five years ago and there has not been any further 
business relationship between Judge Mitrovich or his brother and members of the 
Osborne family.  Further, it is unrefuted that in the case now before Judge Mitrovich, 
Richard Osborne does not have an interest in any of the property at issue. 
{¶3} 
Affiant’s second argument for disqualification concerns a 1998 
case, Deborah M. Lane v. City of Mentor, where affiant again represented the city of 
Mentor.  Affiant claims that in his opinion granting an injunction against the city of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2 
Mentor, Judge Mitrovich used “intemperate language” concerning the city of Mentor, 
and that the court of appeals disapproved of that language in a decision reversing 
Judge Mitrovich.  Although affiant attached the judge’s opinion and the court of 
appeals’ decision, affiant did not specify the alleged “intemperate” language, nor did 
he indicate what he considered to be the appellate court’s disapproval of the language.  
My own review of the court of appeals’ opinion reveals no such reference to 
“intemperate language” in the opinion of the trial court. 
{¶4} 
An affidavit must describe with specificity and particularity those 
facts alleged to support the claim of bias or prejudice.  It is not this court’s duty to 
speculate as to what language the affiant considers “intemperate” or where the 
appellate court “disapproved” of the trial judge’s language. 
{¶5} 
For the foregoing reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found 
not well taken and is denied.  The cause shall continue before Judge Mitrovich. 
__________________