State of Missouri Hurwitz v. North’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 9 district · 89 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 184 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[The Board] has complied with the requirements of the law in that it initiated a complaint as authorized, gave written notice to the accused more than twenty days before the hearing date, which notice contained specifications of charges which the General Assembly has designated as causes for revocation, held a hearing pursuant to such notice, in which hearing evidence was taken and preserved, and made a determination as directed by the statute. The statute makes specific provision for judicial review of the proceedings and [Doctor] secured such review in the circuit court of the county of his residence. A previous statute from which [§ 334.100 is] derived, Section 7336, RSMo 1919, was applied to circumstances similar to this case, and the board revoked the license of a physician for a ground specified in the statute. The statute and procedure were held by the United States Supreme Court to afford due process, the court saying: “The due process clause does not guarantee * * ⅜ any particular form or method of state procedure. Its requirements are satisfied if he has reasonable notice, and reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present his claim or defense, due regard being had to the nature of the proceedings and the character of the rights which may be affected by it. * ⅜ ⅜ The procedure authorized by [§ 334.100], as it was applied by the Board, satisfied those requirements]]]””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Board of Medical Examiners v. Buck · 682 F. Supp. 501 - Waltz v. Herlihy