Title: In re Disqualification of Crehan

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Crehan, 100 Ohio St.3d 1212, 2002-Ohio-7469.] 
 
 
 
 
Opinion in Chambers, per Moyer, C.J. 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF CREHAN. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. CENTERS. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Crehan, 100 Ohio St.3d 1212, 2002-Ohio-
7469.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Affidavit moot when case is pending on 
docket of another judge — Affidavit of disqualification may not be used to 
test validity of local rule of court. 
(No. 02-AP-015 — Decided February 7, 2002.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Butler County Common Pleas Court case 
No. CR2002010014. 
__________________ 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶1} 
This affidavit of disqualification filed by Robin Piper, counsel for 
plaintiff Tiana Centers, seeks the disqualification of Judge Matthew Crehan from 
further proceedings regarding the above-captioned matter. 
{¶2} 
A review of the record before me indicates that, after the initial 
assignment and three subsequent transfers, the underlying case presently is on the 
docket of a judge other than Judge Crehan.  R.C. 2701.03(A) provides, in part, 
that an affidavit of disqualification may be filed “[i]f a judge of the court of 
common pleas allegedly is interested in a proceeding pending before the court * * 
*.”  This statutory provision was applied in a similar circumstance in In re 
Disqualification of Grossmann (1994), 74 Ohio St.3d 1254, 657 N.E.2d 1356, 
where the parties sought a ruling on the merits of an affidavit of disqualification 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
after the underlying case was transferred to the docket of another judge.  Since 
there was no cause pending before Judge Grossmann to which the merits of the 
affidavit of disqualification related, I concluded that it would be inappropriate to 
rule on the issue of the judge’s disqualification and dismissed the affidavit as 
moot. 
{¶3} 
Here, the underlying case is no longer pending before Judge 
Crehan, making it inappropriate for the Chief Justice to rule on the merits of the 
affidavit of disqualification.  Although affiant and the judge contend that the 
matter is not moot, since the case might once again be transferred to Judge 
Crehan, a ruling on the merits of the disqualification request under these 
circumstances would be contrary to the plain language of the statute and the prior 
holding of Grossmann.  Moreover, the parties appear to be using this proceeding 
as a means of testing the validity and respective interpretations of a local rule of 
court, something that clearly goes beyond the constitutional and statutory 
authority of the Chief Justice to determine the existence of bias, prejudice, or 
other disqualifying interest.  See Section 5(C), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution 
and R.C. 2701.03.  Should this matter later be reassigned to Judge Crehan, affiant 
can renew his request for disqualification by filing either a motion for 
reconsideration or a second affidavit of disqualification. 
{¶4} 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is moot and is 
dismissed. 
__________________