Lopez v. Dave's Supermarket, Inc., Unpublished Decision (10-7-2004)
Lopez v. Dave's Supermarket, Inc., Unpublished Decision (10-7-2004)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} The record on appeal does not demonstrate the acts that Lopez complains about — hostility, anger, impatience, and gesturing. Lopez has appended to her merit brief three affidavits which detail these alleged incidents, but we cannot consider them since they were not a part of the record below. State v.Ishmail (1978),
{¶ 3} Contrary to Dave's assertions, we can review questions of conduct which might demonstrably call into question the court's impartiality and thus deprive a party of a fair trial. See, e.g., State v. Laing (Dec. 2, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 73927. This, however, is not a case where the alleged conduct by the court is demonstrable. We are left with no choice but to find that Lopez has failed to exemplify her claimed error. See App.R. 12(A)(2).
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Gallagher, J., Concurs. Blackmon, J., Concurs in Judgment only.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.