Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald (In Re Yarbrough)

Ohio Supreme Court

Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald (In Re Yarbrough)

2019 Ohio 1630, 125 N.E.3d 978, 156 Ohio St. 3d 1255

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 7, 2019

Docket19-AP-010

StatusPublished

This text of 2019 Ohio 1630 (Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald (In Re Yarbrough)) 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

Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald (In Re Yarbrough), 2019 Ohio 1630, 125 N.E.3d 978, 156 Ohio St. 3d 1255 (Ohio 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

O'Connor, C.J.

*1255 {¶ 1} On January 18, 2019, Sean P. FitzGerald filed an affidavit pursuant to R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Stephen Yarbrough, a retired judge sitting by assignment, from presiding over any further proceedings in the above-referenced cases. Mr. FitzGerald's affidavit was denied on February 21, 2019. On March 4, 2019, Mr. FitzGerald filed a document entitled "Motion For Reconsideration, Memorandum In Support and Supplemental Affidavit of Disqualification."

*1256 {¶ 2} Effective March 1, 2019, S.Ct.Prac.R. 21.02(E) prohibits the filing of a motion for reconsideration regarding an affidavit of disqualification. In addition, S.Ct.Prac.R. 21.02(D) provides that the clerk of this court "may accept supplemental or additional affidavits of disqualification regarding a pending case, provided that the supplemental or additional affidavits meet the filing requirements set forth in S.Ct.Prac.R. 21.01(C) and R.C. 2701.03." Mr. FitzGerald's affidavit of disqualification was no longer pending when the additional documents were filed and his purported "supplemental affidavit" failed to meet the filing requirements set forth in S.Ct.Prac.R. 21.01(C) and R.C. 2701.03.

{¶ 3} Because Mr. FitzGerald filed his recent document after the effective date of S.Ct.Prac.R. 21.02(D) and (E), those rules apply to his filing. Accordingly, Mr. FitzGerald's motion for reconsideration and purported supplemental affidavit are stricken from the record.

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

O'Connor, C.J.

*1255 {¶ 1} On January 18, 2019, Sean P. FitzGerald filed an affidavit pursuant to R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Stephen Yarbrough, a retired judge sitting by assignment, from presiding over any further proceedings in the above-referenced cases. Mr. FitzGerald's affidavit was denied on February 21, 2019. On March 4, 2019, Mr. FitzGerald filed a document entitled "Motion For Reconsideration, Memorandum In Support and Supplemental Affidavit of Disqualification."

*1256 {¶ 2} Effective March 1, 2019, S.Ct.Prac.R. 21.02(E) prohibits the filing of a motion for reconsideration regarding an affidavit of disqualification. In addition, S.Ct.Prac.R. 21.02(D) provides that the clerk of this court "may accept supplemental or additional affidavits of disqualification regarding a pending case, provided that the supplemental or additional affidavits meet the filing requirements set forth in S.Ct.Prac.R. 21.01(C) and R.C. 2701.03." Mr. FitzGerald's affidavit of disqualification was no longer pending when the additional documents were filed and his purported "supplemental affidavit" failed to meet the filing requirements set forth in S.Ct.Prac.R. 21.01(C) and R.C. 2701.03.

{¶ 3} Because Mr. FitzGerald filed his recent document after the effective date of S.Ct.Prac.R. 21.02(D) and (E), those rules apply to his filing. Accordingly, Mr. FitzGerald's motion for reconsideration and purported supplemental affidavit are stricken from the record.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2019 Ohio 1630, 125 N.E.3d 978, 156 Ohio St. 3d 1255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzgerald-v-fitzgerald-in-re-yarbrough-ohio-2019.