Tumey v. Ohio
- Decided
- March 14, 1927
- Docket
- 527
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,714 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that appellant’s due process rights were violated when mayor received compensation for his statutorily-mandated judicial duties only if defendant was convicted — Avilez v. State (2011)
- holding that due process is violated where judge has “direct, personal, substantial pecuniary interest” in convicting — Agomo v. Fenty (2007)
- holding that a judge may not preside over a case in which he has a "direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest" — Jordan v. U.S. Dep't of Justice (2018)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*514] Mr. Chief Justice Taft delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is whether' certaift statutes of Ohio, in providing for the trial by the mayor of a village of one accused of violating the Prohibition Act of the State, deprive the accused of due process of law and violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitu [*515] tion, because of the pecuniary and other interest which those statutes give the mayor in the result of the trial.
Tumey, the plaintiff in error, hereafter to be called the defendant, was arrested and brought before Mayor Pugh, of the Village of North College Hill, charged with unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor. He moved for his dismissal because of the disqualification of the Mayor to try him, under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Mayor denied the motion, proceeded to the trial, convicted the defendant of unlawfully possessing intoxicating liquor within Hamilton County, as charged, fined him $100, and ordered that he be imprisoned until the fine and costs were paid. He obtained a bill of exceptions and carried the case on error to the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County. That court heard the case and reversed the judgment, on the ground that the Mayor was disqualified, as claimed. 25 Ohio Nisi Prius (n. s.) 580. The State sought review by the Court of Appeals of the first appellate district of Ohio, which reversed the Common Pleas and affirmed the judgment of the Mayor. 23 Ohio Law Reporter, 634.
Cite this
Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.