In re Disqualification of Corrigan, 04-AP-083.
| Decision Date | 14 September 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 04-AP-083.,04-AP-083. |
| Citation | 826 N.E.2d 302,2004 Ohio 7354,105 Ohio St.3d 1243 |
| Parties | In re DISQUALIFICATION OF CORRIGAN. In re Guardianship of Muehrcke. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
{¶ 1} Robert Muehrcke and Laura Muehrcke, two of the parties in a long-running probate matter, have filed affidavits with the Clerk of this court under R.C. 2701.03 and 2101.39, seeking the disqualification of Judge John E. Corrigan from acting on any further proceedings in case No. 2001-GDM-54818 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Probate Division. Appended to affiants' affidavits are several other affidavits of various attorneys in that case.
{¶ 2} The affiants contend that Judge Corrigan made disparaging remarks to the attorneys at pretrial conferences in July 2004, allegedly referring derisively to the expensive clothing and wristwatch worn by attorney Vincent Stafford, and referring to attorney Attilio Lepri and others as "jackasses." The judge also had attorney Lepri forcibly removed from the judge's chambers, according to the affidavits, and held a baseball bat while berating the lawyers.
{¶ 3} The affidavits also state that Judge Corrigan told the attorneys at a pretrial conference how he would ultimately decide the case, though he had not yet heard testimony from the parties. In addition, the affidavits allege that the judge held Robert Muehrcke in contempt and fined him $1,500 without holding a hearing and also granted attorney fees to the guardian for the Muehrckes' minor child without allowing the Muehrckes to contest the amount of the fees.
{¶ 4} Finally, affiant Robert Muehrcke alleges that the judge is a close friend of Robert Housel, who filed a motion to intervene in the case in July 2003. The judge granted the motion in July 2004, and affiant Robert Muehrcke alleges that the judge's friendship with Housel might affect the fairness and impartiality of any court rulings in the case.
{¶ 5} Judge Corrigan has responded to the affidavits, and he denies holding any feelings of bias or prejudice against the Muehrckes or their attorneys. He does fault Robert Muehrcke for delaying the case and for failing to cooperate with discovery demands, but the judge contends that he remains focused on the goal of resolving the case fairly and justly. Judge Corrigan also denies that he has a personal relationship with attorney Housel that might interfere with the judge's impartiality.
{¶ 6} Attached to Judge Corrigan's response is an affidavit by attorney Richard Koblentz, the lawyer for the Muehrckes' minor daughter, Susan. He states that Judge Corrigan used the term "jackasses" and referred to a "crowbar" when decrying the slowness with which some parties approach discovery and while explaining the judge's role in forcing the parties to get moving. The judge also, according to the Koblentz affidavit, joked with the attorneys about the expensive clothing and jewelry that domestic-relations attorneys wear. Koblentz did not find the comments offensive, and he labels the remarks described in the affidavits of disqualification as "few" and "isolated" and not indicative of bias or prejudice.
{¶ 7} Attorney Alan Petrov has submitted an affidavit also. Petrov represents Robert Housel, the Muehrckes' former attorney. Petrov supports the version of events described by attorney Koblentz, and he says that Judge Corrigan never held a baseball bat or threatened anyone with one during the July pretrial conferences.
{¶ 8} After careful review of the nine affidavits filed in this case, as well as the judge's response, I find no basis for ordering the disqualification of Judge Corrigan. To be sure, the attorneys remember differently the events that occurred at the two July pretrial conferences, and the incidents described in some of the affidavits are troubling. In the wake of the conflicting stories presented by the various affiants, however, I cannot conclude that the judge is clearly biased and prejudiced, and certainly the judge himself states that he can resolve the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re O.B.
...the court's ability to perform its duties, judges are allowed to express their dissatisfaction. See In re Disqualification of Corrigan, 105 Ohio St.3d 1243, 2004-Ohio-7354, 826 N.E.2d 302, ¶ 10 (judges are entitled to express their dissatisfaction with an attorney's dilatory tactics inside ......
-
Estate of McCauley v. Conley (In re Forchione)
...certainly entitled to express dissatisfaction with attorneys' dilatory tactics inside and outside the courtroom.” In re Disqualification of Corrigan, 105 Ohio St.3d 1243, 2004-Ohio-7354, 826 N.E.2d 302, ¶ 10.See also In re Disqualification of Sutula, 105 Ohio St.3d 1237, 2004-Ohio-7351, 826......
-
Angus v. Angus
...syllabus. Generally, mere disagreement or dissatisfaction with a ruling does not demonstrate bias or prejudice. In re Disqualification of Corrigan, 105 Ohio St.3d 1243, 2004-Ohio-7354, 826 N.E.2d 302, ¶ 9 ; accord In re Disqualification of Fuerst, 134 Ohio St.3d 1267, 2012-Ohio-6344, 984 N.......
-
AFF Ohio, L.L.C. v. Stark Ceramics, Inc. (In re Disqualification of Forchione)
... ... In re Disqualification of Synenberg, 127 Ohio St.3d 1220, 2009-Ohio-7206, 937 N.E.2d 1011, 24, quoting In re Disqualification of Corrigan, 105 Ohio St.3d 1243, 2004-Ohio-7354, 826 N.E.2d 302, 10. Based on the quoted portions in Judge Forchione's response, that standard was met ... ...
-
Bullies on the Bench
.... Id. 149 . M ODEL CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT R. 2.8(B) (2011). 150. See id. R. 2.2. 151 . See, e.g. , In re Disqualification of Corrigan, 826 N.E.2d 302, 303–04 (Ohio 2004) (deciding that while “[t]he judge’s use of the word ‘jackas ses’ when evidently referring to attorneys who behave fooli......