Citation network
Tumey Vs. Ohio
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 07, 1927
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 510 (1927) U.S. Supreme Court Tumey v. OhioSearch
-
U.S. 510 (1927) Tumey v. OhioSearch
-
a writ of error allowed by the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court, to which it was rightly directed. Matthews v. HuweSearch
-
Hetrick v. VillageSearch
-
some misapprehension or mistake or bias on the part of the trial court, or a willful disregard of duties. Datesh v. StateSearch
-
Section v. ThatSearch
-
State v. NolteSearch
-
capacity are disqualified by their interest in the controversy to be decided is, of course, the general rule. Dimes v. GrandSearch
-
Gregory v. RailroadSearch
-
Peace v. AtwoodSearch
-
Taylor v. CommissionersSearch
-
Kentish Artillery v. GardinerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Moses v. JulianSearch
-
State v. CraneSearch
-
Stockwell v. TownshipSearch
-
Findley v. SmithSearch
-
that there is no judge not equally disqualified to act in such a case has been held to affect the question. Wheeling v. BlackSearch
-
Peck v. FreeholdersSearch
-
Dimes v. GrandSearch
-
Stuart v. Mechanics'Search
-
Ranger v. RailroadSearch
-
state policy, remoteness of interest, would seem generally to be matters merely of legislative discretion. Wheeling v. BlackSearch
-
this, but assert the validity of the practice as an exception to the general rule. The rely upon the cases of Ownbey v. MorganSearch
-
Murray's Lessee v. HobokenSearch
-
City of London v. WoodSearch
-
Day v. SavageSearch
-
Hesketh v. BraddockSearch
-
subject to amercement pro falso clamore, while if he succeeded, the defendant was in misericordia. See Comm. v. JohnsonSearch
-
Musser v. GoodSearch
-
and bad on the ground that the justice who was an inhabitant was interested, as being liable to the poor's rate. ( Rex v. GreatSearch
-
And this strict principle, unless there is relief by the statute, is seen in modern cases. Queen v. TheSearch
-
Regina v. HammondSearch
-
The Queen v. RandSearch
-
Queen v. GaffordSearch
-
that provision for payment to the judge of fees only in case of conviction does not disqualify him. Those are Bennett v. StateSearch
-
Wellmaker v. TerrellSearch
-
is no evidence that payment of his salary was dependent on the amount of his collections or convictions. In Herbert v. BaltimoreSearch
-
action, the court would be patient to hear pressed by the justice whose constitutional rights were not affected. Tyler v. CourtSearch
-
California Reduction Co. v. SanitarySearch
-
Reduction Works, 199 U. S. 306 , 199 U. S. 318 . In the case of Probasco v. RaineSearch
-
exactly opposite conclusion was reached by the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Ohio in Meyers v. ShieldsSearch
-
have been held incompetent to sit in suits against the municipal corporation of which they have been residents. Diveny v. PageSearch
-
Corwein v. NamesSearch
-
Clark v. LambSearch
-
Dively v. CedarSearch
-
Commonwealth v. McLaneSearch
-
this conclusion was reached and in which the old English corporation cases were considered was that of City Council v. PepperSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial