Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 29, 30, 1926 ; March 7, 1927
[*514] [**438] [***751] MR. CHIEF JUSTICE TAFT delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is whether certain 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 Constitution, [*515] because of the pecuniary and other [****9] 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.
On May 4, 1926, the State Supreme Court refused defendant's application to require the Court of Appeals to [****10] certify its record in the case. The defendant then filed a petition in error in that court as of right, asking that the judgment of the Mayor's Court and of the Appellate Court be reversed, on constitutional grounds. On May 11, 1926, the Supreme Court adjudged that the petition be dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question was involved in the cause. The judgment was then brought here upon a writ of error allowed by the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court, to which it was rightly directed. Matthews v. Huwe, Treasurer, 269 U.S. 262; Hetrick v. Village of Lindsey, 265 U.S. 384. This brings us to the merits of the case.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
273 U.S. 510 *; 47 S. Ct. 437 **; 71 L. Ed. 749 ***; 1927 U.S. LEXIS 708 ****; 5 Ohio L. Abs. 159; 5 Ohio L. Abs. 185; 50 A.L.R. 1243
TUMEY v. OHIO
Prior History: [****1] ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Disposition: The Court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion.
village, fines, liquor, ordinance, dollars, municipal, intoxicating, pecuniary, salary, amercements, inferior, one-half, traffic, secret, disqualification, disqualified, offenders, treasury, regular, jurors
Civil Procedure, Inability to Proceed, Disqualification & Recusal, General Overview, Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Procedural Due Process, Scope of Protection, Legal Ethics, Judicial Conduct, Judicial Officers, Judges, Criminal Law & Procedure, Trials, Defendant's Rights, Right to Due Process, Preclusion of Judgments, Estoppel, Judicial Estoppel, Sentencing, Fines, Governments, Courts, Authority to Adjudicate