Robinson v. Hays’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 1975
5 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.
Relationships
Relies on Oakley v. . Aspinwall · Sansom v. Mercer · Scholl v. Bell · Arberry v. Beavers · Aycock v. Clark
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * However, the mere fact that the Legislature has provided that the city council shall be the judge of the election and qualification of its members does not confer upon a member of the council who is a candidate for re-election, the right to sit in judgment on his own case. Hays was a candidate for re-election at the election which has been called in question by the contest. He is named as the contestee, and the outcome of said contest will affect his right to continue in office. He therefore has a direct and personal interest in said election contest. The matter of determining an election contest is a quasi judicial matter requiring the exercise of judicial discretion on the part of those who are to determine such contest. 43 C.J. 496; 19 R.C.L. 897; Hobbs v. Upington, 121 Ky. 170 , 89 S. W. 128 . It is a well-established principle of law that one who is a candidate for re-election at an election held to select his successor, and who is a party to a contest to determine the validity or outcome of such election, cannot sit in judgment and participate in his official capacity in determining the validity or result of such election. 43 C.J. 508; 19 R.C.L. 897; Rollins v. Connor, 74 N.H. 456 , 69 A. 777, 778 , 124 Am.St.Rep. 983 , 13 Ann.Cas. 334; Security National Bank [of Mason City] v. Bagley, 202 Iowa, 701 , 210 N.W. 947 , par. 6, 49 A.L.R. 705 ; Hobbs v. Upington, 121 Ky. 170 , 89 S.W. 128 ; Scholl v. Bell, 125 Ky. 750 , 102 S.W. 248, 255 ; City of Springfield v. Haydo”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The rule is very plain that no man can be plaintiff or prosecutor in any action and at the same time sit in judgment to decide in that particular case, either in his own case, or in any case, where he brings forward the accusation or complaint on which the order is made.' Leeson v. Medical Education, etc., 43 Ch.D. (Eng.) 366, 379. It is equally plain that a man cannot sit in judgment to decide upon the validity of a claim against himself, or in a proceeding in which he is the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"The mayor has a right to vote on ■matters such as are here under consideration only in the event of a tie vote by the aldermen. Revised \Statutes, art. 1007”.”
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.