Title: In re Disqualification of Watson

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF WATSON. 
SAMMONS v. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ET AL. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Watson (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Disqualification not warranted by mere 
fact that a party is the funding authority of the court — Mere allegations 
that a judge will be called as a witness in a pending case will not require 
disqualification. 
(No. 97-AP-030 — Decided March 10, 1997.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Franklin County  
Court of Common Pleas case No. 96CVH02-1550. 
 
MOYER, C.J.  This affidavit of disqualification was filed by Phillip L. 
Harmon, counsel for plaintiff Arlend Sammons, seeking the disqualification of 
Judge Michael H. Watson from further proceedings in the above-captioned case. 
 
Affiant contends that Judge Watson and all judges of the Franklin County 
Court of Common Pleas should be disqualified because the defendant in this 
matter, the Franklin County Board of Commissioners, is the funding authority for 
the court.  Moreover, affiant contends that Judge Watson’s former position as the 
Governor’s legal counsel during the time that ownership of the subject property 
was transferred from the state to the county mandates his disqualification to avoid 
the appearance of impropriety. 
 
The mere fact that a party to a pending case is the funding authority of the 
court in which the case is pending does not, without more, mandate the 
disqualification of the judges of that court.  Absent factors that demonstrate an 
interest in the subject matter that mandates disqualification under the Code of 
Judicial Conduct or to avoid the appearance of impropriety, I decline to establish a 
 
2
rule that requires the disqualification of a judge or an entire court based solely on 
the fact that a party to the case is the court’s funding authority. 
 
Further, there is no indication in the record that, in his prior employment, 
Judge Watson obtained information or performed functions regarding the property 
that is the subject of the underlying litigation that mandates his disqualification.  
Although affiant contends that Judge Watson will be called as a witness in the 
underlying case, the judge denies having information that would make him a 
material witness.  Mere allegations that a judge will be called as a witness in a 
pending case will not require the judge’s disqualification.  See In re 
Disqualification of Gorman (1993), 74 Ohio St.3d 1251, 657 N.E.2d 1354. 
 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken 
and is denied.  The case shall proceed before Judge Watson.