Gouty v. Gouty

Ohio Supreme Court

Gouty v. Gouty

657 N.E.2d 1353, 74 Ohio St. 3d 1250, 1993 Ohio LEXIS 2789

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 27, 1993

DocketNo. 93-AP-162

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 657 N.E.2d 1353 (Gouty v. Gouty) 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

Gouty v. Gouty, 657 N.E.2d 1353, 74 Ohio St. 3d 1250, 1993 Ohio LEXIS 2789 (Ohio 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Moyer, C.J.

This affidavit of disqualification was filed by defendant Carl D. Gouty seeking the disqualification of Judge Yvette McGee Brown from further proceedings in the above-captioned case.

As grounds for disqualification, affiant cites statements made by the judge at a pretrial relative to the possible award of spousal support and attorney fees if the facts and arguments presented at the pretrial are substantiated by the evidence at trial.

In response, the judge states that her preliminary assessment was made based on pretrial statements and arguments of counsel, and that she advised counsel and the parties in open court that her assessment was conditioned upon the facts being substantiated at trial.

[1251]*1251A judge rarely hears preliminary aspects of a case without forming conditional opinions of the facts or law. These conditional opinions often assist the parties and their counsel in identifying and narrowing the issues in controversy and facilitate the settlement of cases prior to trial. However, the formation of these conditional opinions is not sufficient to counter the presumption of the judge’s ability to render a fair decision based upon the evidence later presented at trial. See State v. Cox (1911), 21 Ohio Dec. 299, 310. For this reason, affiant’s claim of bias and prejudice is found not well taken, the affidavit of disqualification is denied, and the cause shall continue before Judge Brown.

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

Moyer, C.J.

This affidavit of disqualification was filed by defendant Carl D. Gouty seeking the disqualification of Judge Yvette McGee Brown from further proceedings in the above-captioned case.

As grounds for disqualification, affiant cites statements made by the judge at a pretrial relative to the possible award of spousal support and attorney fees if the facts and arguments presented at the pretrial are substantiated by the evidence at trial.

In response, the judge states that her preliminary assessment was made based on pretrial statements and arguments of counsel, and that she advised counsel and the parties in open court that her assessment was conditioned upon the facts being substantiated at trial.

[1251]*1251A judge rarely hears preliminary aspects of a case without forming conditional opinions of the facts or law. These conditional opinions often assist the parties and their counsel in identifying and narrowing the issues in controversy and facilitate the settlement of cases prior to trial. However, the formation of these conditional opinions is not sufficient to counter the presumption of the judge’s ability to render a fair decision based upon the evidence later presented at trial. See State v. Cox (1911), 21 Ohio Dec. 299, 310. For this reason, affiant’s claim of bias and prejudice is found not well taken, the affidavit of disqualification is denied, and the cause shall continue before Judge Brown.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

657 N.E.2d 1353, 74 Ohio St. 3d 1250, 1993 Ohio LEXIS 2789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gouty-v-gouty-ohio-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack