Henize v. Giles’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

57 state decisions

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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[F]ederal law mandates that state unemployment programs provide an '[o]pportunity for a fair hearing, before an impartial tribunal * * *.' Section 503(a)(3), Title 42, U.S.Code. This statute has been interpreted to impose requirements which are the same as constitutional procedural due process requirements. Camacho v. Bowling (N.D. Ill.1983), 562 F.Supp. 1012 , 1020. Hence, any judicial analysis of the state's hearing procedures in this case must be conducted with a fundamental recognition that under the Fourteenth Amendment the cornerstone of due process, in the procedural sense, is the opportunity for a fair hearing. Boddie v. Connecticut (1971), 401 U.S. 371 , 378 [ 91 S.Ct. 780 , 28 L.Ed.2d 113 ]." Quoting Henize v. Giles , 22 Ohio St.3d 213 , 215, 490 N.E.2d 585 (1986).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Atkins v. Dept. of Job Family Servs., 08ap-182 (8-14-2008) · Freed v. Unemployment Comp. Review Comm'n

2. “The finding is inescapable that because of the character of the proceedings in light of the interest at stake, lay representation does not pose a hazard to the public in this limited setting. Our conclusion is bolstered by the clear recognition that lay representation has been the practice since the inception of Ohio's unemployment compensation program in 1936.... Our decision today does not reach nor permit the rendering of legal advice regarding unemployment compensation laws or board orders. Rather, our narrow holding merely permits lay representation of parties to assist in the preparation and presentation of their cause in order to facilitate the hearing process. We believe board hearings should not be turned into adversarial proceedings since they are legislatively designed to function as an informal mechanism through which the referee, in a participatory capacity, ascertains the facts involved. In light of the serious detriment to claimants and employers which would result if the current system were unnecessarily disturbed, we deem this to be an appropriate and limited setting in which to authorize lay representation by granting due deference to the statute and agency rule.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. BNA Constr. Ltd. v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs. · Piunti v. COM., DEPT. OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY

3. ““Although parties may choose to be represented by lawyers in these proceedings, the hard reality is that few employ legal counsel. This is due in part to the interest at stake, the regulations which understandably limit attorney fees and, most importantly, the fact that attorneys are simply not required in most of these claim reviews. This is because of the informality of the proceedings coupled with the recognition that, in most instances, a formal presentation of legal argument is not needed. Instead, the hearing is designed to be an administrative information gathering tool serving as an alternative to judicial resolution of every contested claim. “Unquestionably, this court is the body which ultimately controls the practice of law in this state. Section 2(B)(1)(g), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution; R.C. 4705.01 * * * . With this authority is the concomitant responsibility to protect the public by preventing the unauthorized practice of law, while at the same time not exercising this authority so rigidly that the public good suffers.” 22 Ohio St. 3d at 217 , 490 N.E.2d at 588-89 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Unauth. Prac. of Law Com. v. State, Department of Wkrs. Comp.