Wee Care Child Center, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Job & Family Services

Ohio Supreme Court

Wee Care Child Center, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Job & Family Services

2009 Ohio 7200, 127 Ohio St. 3d 1235

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 31, 2009

Docket09-AP-085

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2009 Ohio 7200 (Wee Care Child Center, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Job & Family Services) 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

Wee Care Child Center, Inc. v. Ohio Department of Job & Family Services, 2009 Ohio 7200, 127 Ohio St. 3d 1235 (Ohio 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Moyer, CJ.

{¶ 1} H. Macy Favor Jr., counsel for the plaintiffs, has filed an affidavit with the clerk of this court seeking the disqualification of Judge Joseph T. Clark from further proceedings in case No. 2008-11397 in the Court of Claims of Ohio.

{¶ 2} Favor’s affidavit of disqualification was filed pursuant to Rule 5(E) of the Local Rules of the Court of Claims of Ohio, which provides that “[ajffidavits of bias and prejudice filed against judges of the court of claims shall be processed in accordance with R.C. 2701.03.” In turn, R.C. 2701.03 governs the disqualification of judges of the court of common pleas. R.C. 2701.03 sets forth the procedures for filing an affidavit to disqualify a common pleas court judge, and those same procedures apply to affidavits of disqualification filed against probate and court of appeals judges under R.C. 2101.39 and 2501.13. See R.C. 2701.03(B) through (E). There is no provision, however, in R.C. 2701.03 for the disqualification of judges of the Ohio Court of Claims.

{¶ 3} It is well settled that a local rule of court cannot prevail when it is inconsistent with the express provisions of a statute. See State ex rel. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers v. Gosser (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 30, 20 OBR 279, 485 N.E.2d 706, paragraph three of the syllabus. My statutory authority under R.C. 2701.03(A) allows me to disqualify “a judge of the court of common pleas.” R.C. 2701.03 does not permit the chief justice to rule on allegations of bias and prejudice made against judges of the Court of Claims. Because Court of Claims Local Rule 5(E) purports to expand the authority of the chief justice beyond that contemplated by R.C. 2701.03, it conflicts with the statute. Thus, to the extent that Local Rule 5(E) is inconsistent with R.C. 2701.03, it is invalid.

*1236 {¶ 4} Accordingly, Local Rule 5(E) cannot operate to authorize the filing of an affidavit of disqualification pursuant to R.C. 2701.03 against a judge of the Court of Claims. Therefore, the affidavit of disqualification is dismissed. The case may proceed before Judge Clark.

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

Moyer, CJ.

{¶ 1} H. Macy Favor Jr., counsel for the plaintiffs, has filed an affidavit with the clerk of this court seeking the disqualification of Judge Joseph T. Clark from further proceedings in case No. 2008-11397 in the Court of Claims of Ohio.

{¶ 2} Favor’s affidavit of disqualification was filed pursuant to Rule 5(E) of the Local Rules of the Court of Claims of Ohio, which provides that “[ajffidavits of bias and prejudice filed against judges of the court of claims shall be processed in accordance with R.C. 2701.03.” In turn, R.C. 2701.03 governs the disqualification of judges of the court of common pleas. R.C. 2701.03 sets forth the procedures for filing an affidavit to disqualify a common pleas court judge, and those same procedures apply to affidavits of disqualification filed against probate and court of appeals judges under R.C. 2101.39 and 2501.13. See R.C. 2701.03(B) through (E). There is no provision, however, in R.C. 2701.03 for the disqualification of judges of the Ohio Court of Claims.

{¶ 3} It is well settled that a local rule of court cannot prevail when it is inconsistent with the express provisions of a statute. See State ex rel. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers v. Gosser (1985), 20 Ohio St.3d 30, 20 OBR 279, 485 N.E.2d 706, paragraph three of the syllabus. My statutory authority under R.C. 2701.03(A) allows me to disqualify “a judge of the court of common pleas.” R.C. 2701.03 does not permit the chief justice to rule on allegations of bias and prejudice made against judges of the Court of Claims. Because Court of Claims Local Rule 5(E) purports to expand the authority of the chief justice beyond that contemplated by R.C. 2701.03, it conflicts with the statute. Thus, to the extent that Local Rule 5(E) is inconsistent with R.C. 2701.03, it is invalid.

*1236 {¶ 4} Accordingly, Local Rule 5(E) cannot operate to authorize the filing of an affidavit of disqualification pursuant to R.C. 2701.03 against a judge of the Court of Claims. Therefore, the affidavit of disqualification is dismissed. The case may proceed before Judge Clark.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2009 Ohio 7200, 127 Ohio St. 3d 1235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wee-care-child-center-inc-v-ohio-department-of-job-family-services-ohio-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack