150 Ohio St. 203 - State Ex Rel. Hackley v. Edmonds’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably State ex rel. Paluf v. Feneli (1994), Fuldauer v. City of Cleveland (1972)
50 state decisions
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.
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is claimed by respondent that, since Section 38, Article II, provides for removal from office, upon complaint and hearing, a recall from office under a charter provision allowing such a procedure by a vote of the people violates the provisions of Section 38. * * * * * * "By its charter the city of Hamilton has chosen to elect its councilmen for conditional two-year terms. The condition of that election is that the term shall be for two years unless, under the provisions of the charter, a councilman is recalled by a majority vote of the electors. His term is not for two years, it is only for two years if he is not legally recalled under the provisions of the charter. A recall is not based upon the breach of any law, moral turpitude or other matter reflecting upon the character or fitness of the councilman concerned to hold office. The recall is simply a device which the people of Hamilton have seen fit to write into their charter, by which the councilman can be called to the test of a popular vote as to his right to continue in office. The prospective councilman knows, when he is a candidate for the office the conditions of its tenure, and, therefore, by his election, he secures no vested right in anything except a conditional two-year tenure as restricted in the charter." * * * * * * "We do not see, however, that Section 38, Article II, can have any bearing upon the present case. Here we have a situation which does not involve a removal of an officer for cause, which is a”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““Section 3. (Powers.) Municipalities shall have authority to exercise all powers of local self-government and to adopt and enforce within their limits such local police, sanitary and other similar regulations, as are not in conflict with general laws.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A municipality automatically has the form of government prescribed by the statutes of the state unless its citizens voluntarily adopt a charter pursuant to the constitutional provision, and where a majority of the sovereign voters do adopt such a charter it is not for the courts to question the wisdom or desirability of the provisions of such charter in respect to purely local affairs.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.