Title: In re Disqualification of Corrigan

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Corrigan, 94 Ohio St.3d 1234, 2001-Ohio-4092.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF CORRIGAN. 
MEISTER PROTECTION SERVICES, INC. v. PLAIN DEALER PUBLISHING 
COMPANY ET AL. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Corrigan (2001), 94 Ohio St.3d 1234.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Judge was subject of series of critical 
articles, columns, and editorials in newspaper relative to his conduct and 
extended absence from the bench — Judge’s failure to respond to 
allegations of bias and prejudice may result in judge’s disqualification to 
avoid the appearance of impropriety. 
(No. 01-AP-064 — Decided September 11, 2001.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court 
case No. 439422. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J.  This affidavit of disqualification filed by Louis Columbo, 
counsel for defendants, seeks the disqualification of Judge Daniel O. Corrigan, 
from further proceedings regarding the above-captioned case.  The underlying 
case is a defamation action filed against the Cleveland Plain Dealer and the 
newspaper’s employees. 
 
Affiant contends that Judge Corrigan should be disqualified because the 
defendant-newspaper has published a series of articles, columns, and editorials 
relative to Judge Corrigan’s conduct and extended absence from the bench.  
Because the defendant-newspaper’s publications have been critical of Judge 
Corrigan, affiant contends that the judge’s continued participation in this case 
creates an appearance of impropriety and would cause a reasonable person to 
doubt the fairness and integrity of the underlying proceedings. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Judge Corrigan has been asked, on two separate occasions, to respond to 
the allegations contained in the affidavit of disqualification; however, he has not 
responded to these requests.  As I have stated previously, a judge’s failure to 
respond to allegations of bias and prejudice may result in the judge’s 
disqualification to avoid the appearance of impropriety.  See In re Disqualification 
of Ferreri (May 2, 1997), No. 97-AP-041, unreported.  Given the nature of 
affiant’s allegations and Judge Corrigan’s failure to address these allegations, I 
conclude that Judge Corrigan should be disqualified from the underlying case in 
order to avoid the appearance of impropriety and to ensure the parties’ and the 
public’s confidence in the fairness and integrity of these proceedings. 
 
Accordingly, Judge Daniel O. Corrigan is disqualified from further 
proceedings in this matter.  The case is returned to the Administrative Judge of 
the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, General Division, for 
reassignment. 
__________________