Meister Protection Services, Inc. v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Meister Protection Services, Inc. v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co.

94 Ohio St. 3d 1234

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 11, 2001

DocketNo. 01-AP-064

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 94 Ohio St. 3d 1234 (Meister Protection Services, Inc. v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co.) 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

Meister Protection Services, Inc. v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 94 Ohio St. 3d 1234 (Ohio 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Moyer, C.J.

This affidavit of disqualification filed by Louis Columbo, counsel for defendants, seeks the disqualification of Judge Daniel O. Corrigan, from further proceedings regarding the above-captioned case. The underlying case is [1235]*1235a defamation action filed against the Cleveland Plain Dealer and the newspaper’s employees.

Affiant contends that Judge Corrigan should be disqualified because the defendant-newspaper has published a series of articles, columns, and editorials relative to Judge Corrigan’s conduct and extended absence from the bench. Because the defendant-newspaper’s publications have been critical of Judge Corrigan, affiant contends that the judge’s continued participation in this case creates an appearance of impropriety and would cause a reasonable person to doubt the fairness and integrity of the underlying proceedings.

Judge Corrigan has been asked, on two separate occasions, to respond to the allegations contained in the affidavit of disqualification; however, he has not responded to these requests. As I have stated previously, a judge’s failure to respond to allegations of bias and prejudice may result in the judge’s disqualification to avoid the appearance of impropriety. See In re Disqualification of Ferreri (May 2, 1997), No. 97-AP-041, unreported. Given the nature of affiant’s allegations and Judge Corrigan’s failure to address these allegations, I conclude that Judge Corrigan should be disqualified from the underlying case in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety and to ensure the parties’ and the public’s confidence in the fairness and integrity of these proceedings.

Accordingly, Judge Daniel 0. Corrigan is disqualified from further proceedings in this matter. The case is returned to the Administrative Judge of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, General Division, for reassignment.

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

Moyer, C.J.

This affidavit of disqualification filed by Louis Columbo, counsel for defendants, seeks the disqualification of Judge Daniel O. Corrigan, from further proceedings regarding the above-captioned case. The underlying case is [1235]*1235a defamation action filed against the Cleveland Plain Dealer and the newspaper’s employees.

Affiant contends that Judge Corrigan should be disqualified because the defendant-newspaper has published a series of articles, columns, and editorials relative to Judge Corrigan’s conduct and extended absence from the bench. Because the defendant-newspaper’s publications have been critical of Judge Corrigan, affiant contends that the judge’s continued participation in this case creates an appearance of impropriety and would cause a reasonable person to doubt the fairness and integrity of the underlying proceedings.

Judge Corrigan has been asked, on two separate occasions, to respond to the allegations contained in the affidavit of disqualification; however, he has not responded to these requests. As I have stated previously, a judge’s failure to respond to allegations of bias and prejudice may result in the judge’s disqualification to avoid the appearance of impropriety. See In re Disqualification of Ferreri (May 2, 1997), No. 97-AP-041, unreported. Given the nature of affiant’s allegations and Judge Corrigan’s failure to address these allegations, I conclude that Judge Corrigan should be disqualified from the underlying case in order to avoid the appearance of impropriety and to ensure the parties’ and the public’s confidence in the fairness and integrity of these proceedings.

Accordingly, Judge Daniel 0. Corrigan is disqualified from further proceedings in this matter. The case is returned to the Administrative Judge of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, General Division, for reassignment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 Ohio St. 3d 1234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meister-protection-services-inc-v-plain-dealer-publishing-co-ohio-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack