In re Disqualification of McKay, 986 N.E.2d 1007

Farchione filed an affidavit under R.C. 2701.03 seeking disqualification of Judge McKay from ongoing proceedings in Trumbull County case 2006-CV-2992.
Allegations claim Judge McKay’s rulings show bias and create an appearance of impropriety; White disputes bias.
Judge McKay responds that rulings were not biased and public criticism does not prove impropriety.
Farchione cites adverse rulings, voir dire conduct, motions in limine, jury instructions, posttrial orders, and writ of execution as signs of bias.
Timing issue: affidavit filed February 2013 despite events occurring years earlier; majority events occurred by 2011.
Court holds that, absent extraordinary circumstances, disqualification after lengthy proceedings is unlikely and the affidavit is denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the affidavit timely filed?	Farchione contends timely filing given the incident dates.	McKay argues delay waives disqualification rights.	Waived; delay undermined grounds for disqualification.
Can an affidavit of disqualification challenge substantive or procedural law?	Affidavit challenges rulings as biased and prejudicial.	Disqualification cannot be used to contest legal rulings.	No; affidavit cannot contest substantive or procedural law.
Does public reaction or appearance of impropriety justify disqualification?	Public protests show appearance of bias against Shipman.	Media opinions do not establish bias; not competent as barometer of impartiality.	Appearance of impropriety not established by the evidence; not enough.
Do the alleged adverse rulings themselves establish bias?	Consistently adverse rulings show bias against Shipman.	Disagree with some rulings; disagreement does not prove bias.	Adverse rulings alone do not establish bias or a disqualifying interest.
Should the affidavit be granted given the lengthy proceedings and presumptions of impartiality?	Lengthy proceedings and public scrutiny require disqualification.	Presumption of impartiality stands; extraordinary circumstances lacking.	No extraordinary circumstances; affidavit denied; case may proceed.

In re Disqualification of Solovan, 100 Ohio St.3d 1214 (2003-Ohio-5484) (affidavit not vehicle to contest law; timing matters)
In re Disqualification of Floyd, 101 Ohio St.3d 1217 (2003-Ohio-7351) (disqualification not for unhappy with rulings)
In re Disqualification of Lawson, 135 Ohio St.3d 1243 (2012-Ohio-6337) (appearance of bias standard; number of rulings not per se disqualifying)
In re Celebrezze, 94 Ohio St.3d 1228 (2001) (absent extraordinary circumstances, long proceedings do not mandate disqualification)
In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 1241 (2003-Ohio-5489) (presumption of following the law; appearance must be compelling)