Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 Colo. 468 - Hawkins v. Hunt

Hawkins v. Hunt’s Empirical Analysis

1945

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
April 2009
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently April 2009

19 state decisions

701945195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on People Ex Rel. McQuaid v. Pickens

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"* * * It is true that the rules are not so explicit as to specifically advise one of everything he may do and still be classified as an officer and a gentleman and those things he may not do without loss of that classification. However, it would tax one's credulity to assume for a moment that one who possessed sufficient intelligence to pass the civil service examination for the police department did not understand these rules and regulations sufficiently to realize that the securing or insuring of his promotion under civil service for a financial consideration violated one or both of the rules and regulations involved in this section. As applied to the facts in this case, the rules are certainly sufficiently specific and definite, and plaintiff should not be heard to say that he was not, as an officer and gentleman, conscious of the fact that his conduct was reprehensible. * * * * * * "* * * The disciplinary action may have more severe than would be imposed by another, but certainly it was within the Manager's power and it became his duty to determine what was proper disciplinary action, and in this action the plaintiff was not prejudiced."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Conduct prejudicial to the good order and police discipline of the department or conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““ * * * Plaintiff in his ‘Affidavit and Petition for Review and Appeal’ from the Manager to the Commission did not allege that he had any new and additional evidence which he desired to offer in his behalf and which would establish his innocence. He was clearly guilty as charged unless his sworn statement before the Manager was false. There were no disputed facts in the hearing before the Manager. Consequently, there was nothing for the Commission to do in the absence of any allegation that there was new and additional evidence except to examine the record and determine from it whether or not plaintiff had been fairly and honestly dealt with under the rules and regulations of the department. There was no occasion and no necessity for a trial de novo before the Commission, and, under the circumstances, plaintiff is in no position to complain of a failure to accord him such a trial.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.