State v. Weiner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases. But our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness. To this end no man can be a judge in his own case and no man is permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome. That interest cannot be defined with precision. Circumstances and relationships must be considered. This Court has said, however, that ‘Every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge * * * not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true between the State and the accused denies the latter due process of law.’ Tumey v. State of Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 532 , 47 S.Ct. 437, 444 , 71 L.Ed. 749 [(1927)]. Such a stringent rule may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties. But to perform its high function in the best way ‘justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.’ Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 , 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 [ 99 L.Ed. 11 ] [(1954)].””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Baier v. Hampton

2. “We find appellant's contention that it was improper for the judge who signed the affidavit charging contempt to preside at the hearing to be without merit. It is specifically provided in R.C. 2705.05 that it is for the court to decide the question of guilt or innocence. Although the appointment of another judge to hear the evidence is warranted where the alleged contempt takes the form of personal insult or vilification of the judge, so that there would exist the possibility of bias should the victim of such abuse pass judgment on the evidence * * * no such personal attack occurred in the instant case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bank One Trust Co. v. Scherer, 08ap-288 (12-30-2008)

3. “Equally without merit is appellant's contention that he was entitled to be tried before a jury; this contempt is a petty offense within constitutional contemplation (see Cheff v. Schnackenberg (1966), 384 U.S. 373 , 86 S.Ct. 1523 , 16 L.Ed.2d 629 ; Bloom v. Illinois (1968), 391 U.S. 194 , 88 S.Ct. 1477 , 20 L.Ed.2d 522 and R.C. 2705.05 ), and thus there need be no jury trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brooks, Unpublished Decision (9-1-2006)