Case Citator › Tumey v. Ohio

Tumey v. Ohio

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
273 U.S. 510
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
52 of 52
Citing cases (total)
52
Treatment dates
1928
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Tumey v. Ohio remains controlling on the due process right to an impartial tribunal. A Mississippi decision limited its application when a defendant receives a full new trial before an impartial court; that treatment is listed below.
More on how this was screened

All 52 flagged citations have been read.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

52 later cases cite Tumey v. Ohio; 52 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Tumey v. Ohio?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Mississippi Supreme Court held that an impartial trial before the circuit court cured any bias in the earlier justice of the peace proceeding, confining Tumey to its different facts.

    Hitt v. State · Supreme Court of Mississippi · filed

    As the appeal here prosecuted is bottomed upon the case ofTumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749, 50 A.L.R. 1243, we think the statement of facts therein readily discloses the unusual situation produced by the statutes of Ohio. ... No such state of facts is presented by the record in this case, and in the light of our own holdings and our system of the administration of justice, we say that condition of affairs could not arise in Mississippi as is disclosed by the record in the Tumey case. ... The record discloses in this case that in the trial de novo in the circuit court, which is our common-law court with added powers, the defendant in this case had a fair and impartial trial, before a fair and impartial jury and a fair and impartial judge. This is unquestionable, and must conclusively answer the contention of the appellant in this case unless the judgment was absolutely void.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Tumey v. Ohio and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace