Title: In re Disqualification of Corrigan

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Corrigan, 91 Ohio St.3d 1210., 2000-Ohio-104] 
 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF CORRIGAN. 
VILLAGE OF MORELAND HILLS v. ABRAHAM ET AL. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Corrigan (2000), 91 Ohio St.3d 1210.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Affidavit of disqualification cannot be 
used after lengthy proceedings have transpired in the underlying case and 
party seeking disqualification was aware of alleged grounds for 
disqualification — Waiver of objections — No evidence of bias or 
prejudice shown. 
(No. 00-AP-104 — Decided December 6, 2000.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Cuyahoga County Probate Court case No. 
1998ADV4508. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. This affidavit of disqualification filed by James D. Abraham 
seeks the disqualification of Judge John E. Corrigan from further proceedings in 
the above-captioned case.  Affiant’s current counsel, James Pietrangelo, has filed 
a supplemental affidavit in support of affiant’s claim of bias and prejudice. 
 
The underlying case is an eminent domain proceeding that has been 
pending since April 1998.  Because this case has been pending for more than two 
and one-half years, I start with the proposition that an affidavit of disqualification 
cannot be used to disqualify a judge after lengthy proceedings have transpired in 
the case, especially where the party seeking the judge’s removal was aware of the 
grounds for disqualification from some months prior to the filling of the affidavit.  
See In re Disqualification of Light (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 604, 522 N.E.2d 458, 
and In re Disqualification of Belskis (1993), 74 Ohio St.3d 1252, 657 N.E.2d 
1355.  Here, many of the matters raised by affiant and his counsel in support of 
disqualification occurred several months prior to the filing of the affidavit, which 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
was done less than three weeks before the scheduled trial.  Because of the delay in 
raising these issues, affiant waived his objection to Judge Corrigan’s participation 
on these grounds. 
 
The balance of the allegations made by affiant and his attorney relate to 
the October 26, 2000 hearing on a motion to suppress.  Having reviewed these 
allegations, the response of Judge Corrigan, and affidavits from other attorneys 
involved in that hearing, I cannot conclude that affiant has established the 
existence of bias or prejudice that mandates Judge Corrigan’s disqualification.  
While the judge’s actions may appear to affiant and his attorney as the product of 
bias or prejudice, the fact remains that Judge Corrigan has not granted plaintiff’s 
motion to enforce the settlement to which the parties allegedly agreed and has set 
the matter for a jury trial.  Judge Corrigan’s refusal to sustain this motion, in view 
of the affiant’s objections, is an indication of his ability to preside fairly and 
impartially over the balance of this case. 
 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken 
and is denied.  The case shall proceed before Judge Corrigan. 
__________________