Leslie v. Ohio Department of Development

113 Ohio St. 3d 1217 (Ohio 2006) · Supreme Court of Ohio · June 29, 2006 · No. 06-APE-628

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court denied Mark A. Leslie’s affidavit seeking the disqualification of four appellate judges from further proceedings in a Franklin County Court of Appeals case. The court held that the judges’ appointment by the governor and a prior adverse ruling, without a showing of actual bias or compelling prejudice, did not warrant disqualification.

Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the Court
Moyer, C.J.
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
June 29, 2006
Docket number
06-APE-628
Procedural posture
Mark A. Leslie filed an affidavit under Ohio Revised Code 2501.13 seeking the disqualification of four judges of the Court of Appeals for Franklin County from further proceedings in case No. 06-APE-628.
Standard of review
The affidavit was evaluated to determine whether the asserted facts established actual bias, prejudice, or another legally sufficient basis for judicial disqualification.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Mark A. Leslie v. Ohio Department of Development
Disposition
denied

Topics

appellate procedurecivil procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

judicial disqualificationappellate procedurecivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether judges appointed by a governor must be disqualified from a case involving a litigant who has challenged actions of that governor's administration.
  2. Whether a judge must be disqualified from later proceedings involving a party because the judge presided over prior proceedings involving that party or previously ruled against the party.
  3. Whether Leslie's allegations established actual bias, prejudice, or a compelling appearance of bias sufficient to overcome the presumptions that judges follow the law and are unbiased.

Holdings

  1. A judge is not disqualified merely because the judge was appointed by the governor whose administration is the subject of a litigant's challenges.
  2. A judge is not disqualified from later proceedings involving the same party merely because the judge presided over prior proceedings or previously ruled against that party, absent a showing of actual bias.
  3. The affidavit must present compelling evidence of bias or prejudice to overcome the presumptions that a judge follows the law and is not biased; Leslie's allegations did not meet that standard.

Key quotations

A judge need not recuse himself simply because he acquired knowledge of the facts during a prior proceeding (¶ 4)
A judge is presumed to follow the law and not to be biased, and the appearance of bias or prejudice must be compelling to overcome these presumptions. (¶ 5)

Factual background

Leslie had challenged actions of officials in the administration of Governor Taft. Judges French, Klatt, and Travis, who were appointed by Governor Taft, were assigned to his appellate case, while Judge Bryant had ruled against him in an earlier case. Leslie argued that these circumstances required their disqualification.

Procedural history

Leslie sought disqualification of Judges Bryant, French, Klatt, and Travis based on their appointment by Governor Taft, prior rulings against him, and alleged bias. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio considered the affidavit and denied disqualification, allowing the appellate case to proceed before the challenged judges or their colleagues.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…