Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 83 F.2d 351 - Brinkley v. Hassig

Brinkley v. Hassig’s Empirical Analysis

83 F.2d 351 · 1936

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
21
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 1 district · 30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Will (1980), 2 Ohio App. 3d 204 - Lies v. Ohio Veterinary Medical Board (1981)

22 federal appellate · 1 district · 30 state decisions — followed in 21 states

1701936194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Hammond Packing Company v. State of Arkansas · Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners · Hawker v. People of New York · Roschen v. Ward · Evans v. Gore

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

  1. “"Assuming such preconceived prejudice, what is the answer? The statute provides but one tribunal with power to revoke a doctor's license, just as the Supreme Court of Kansas is the only body with power to disbar a lawyer. If such powers may not be exercised if the members of the board or court are prejudiced, then any lawyer or doctor who commits an offense so grave that it shocks every right-thinking person, has an irrevocable license to practice his profession if he can get the news of his offense to the court or board before the trial begins. That will not do. The commendable efforts of the medical and legal professions to raise the standards of their professions by cleaning their own houses cannot be set at naught by any such rule of law. "From the very necessity of the case has grown the rule that disqualification will not be permitted to destroy the only tribunal with power in the premises. If the law provides for a substitution of personnel on a board or court, or if another tribunal exists to which resort may be had, a disqualified member may not act. But where no such provision is made, the law cannot be nullified or the doors to justice barred because of prejudice or disqualification of a member of a court or an administrative tribunal." Brinkley v. Hassig, supra, 83 F.2d 351 at 357 .”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"If an administrative tribunal may on its own initiative investigate, file a complaint, and then try the charge so preferred, due process is not denied here because one or more members of the board aided in the investigation." Brinkley v. Hassig, supra, 83 F.2d 351 at 357 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"(5) The board is not a judicial tribunal, and due process does not require a judicial trial, and the character of the hearing is not measured by standards of judicial procedure." 83 F.2d 351 at 356 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.