Hladys v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 37 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Supreme Court of Washington, considering a similar problem, decided that the assignment of a single assistant attorney general to perform such a dual role would impair at least the appearance of fairness of the tribunal, but that the potential problem would be resolved by the appointment of different attorneys general for the performance of disparate functions. The official conduct of assistant attorneys general is entitled to a presumption of honesty and fairness no less than that accorded to the acts of other public officials .... [T]he institutional connection between the two assistant attorneys general involved in this proceeding did not, per se, impair the right of Dr. Hladys to procedural due process.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Terry v. Wilder

2. “Without a showing to the contrary, state administrators are assumed to be men of conscience and intellectual discipline, capable of judging a particular controversy fairly on the basis of its own circumstances [citations omitted]. [There is also a] presumption that public officials have acted correctly [citation omitted]. That presumption may be overcome by evidence of bias or improper conduct [citation omitted] . . . [The plaintiff in Hladys contends] that the administrative proceedings were structurally flawed by the decisionmaker’s connection with the investigating agency and its chief witness. In the absence of a showing of bias or improper conduct, we do not agree.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Turner