Bowling v. Broadnax

798 N.E.2d 4, 100 Ohio St. 3d 1216
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 27, 2002
DocketNo. 02-AP-018
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 798 N.E.2d 4 (Bowling v. Broadnax) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bowling v. Broadnax, 798 N.E.2d 4, 100 Ohio St. 3d 1216 (Ohio 2002).

Opinion

Moyer, C.J.

{¶ 1} This affidavit of disqualification was filed by Walter Broadnax, seeking the disqualification of Judge Penelope Cunningham from further proceedings in the above-captioned case.

{¶ 2} Affiant references several legal and procedural rulings made by Judge Cunningham in the underlying case and claims that these rulings are the product of racial bias on the part of the judge. Allegations of racial bias are among the [1217]*1217most serious and damaging claims that can be directed at a judge, since such allegations, if true, would not only constitute a violation of the judge’s oath of office and the Code of Judicial Conduct, see R.C. 3.23 and Canon 3(B)(5) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, but also would strike at the very heart of the integrity of the judiciary. In order to warrant a judge’s disqualification, these claims must be demonstrated by clear evidence that establishes the existence of bias. Here, affiant provides no evidence, beyond speculation, to support his assertions that Judge Cunningham’s decisions are the product of bias and prejudice, racial or otherwise. Indeed, affiant asserts that he “cannot say for certain if Judge Cunningham is using my race in making her decision.” Moreover, affiant’s apparent attempt in the opening paragraph of his affidavit to mischaracterize or misidentify the racial and professional background of his former wife casts serious doubt on the truthfulness of the balance of his affidavit.

{¶ 3} In view of affiant’s failure to present clear evidence of bias on the part of Judge Cunningham, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken and is denied. The case shall proceed before Judge Cunningham.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Disciplinary Counsel v. Marshall
2014 Ohio 4815 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2014)
In re Disqualification of Burge
2013 Ohio 2726 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2013)
State v. Jalowiec
991 N.E.2d 237 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2013)
In re Disqualification of Lynch
2013 Ohio 910 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2013)
Sizemore v. Farm Credit Services of Mid-America
2013 Ohio 915 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2013)
In re Disqualification of Donofrio
2012 Ohio 6338 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2012)
State v. Brown
100 Ohio St. 3d 1232 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002)
In re Disqualification of O'Neill
2002 Ohio 7479 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002)
Major Builders Service, Inc. v. Sentry Development Corp.
100 Ohio St. 3d 1230 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002)
State v. Thompson
100 Ohio St. 3d 1228 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002)
In re Disqualification of Cunningham
2002 Ohio 7470 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
798 N.E.2d 4, 100 Ohio St. 3d 1216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowling-v-broadnax-ohio-2002.