Wall’s Empirical Analysis
107 U.S. 265 · 1882
Citation profile
153 federal appellate · 51 district · 447 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 809 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2018 · most notably Hurtado v. People of the State of California (1884), Helvering v. Mitchell (1938)
153 federal appellate · 51 district · 447 state decisions — followed in 48 states
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 John Den James Murray and John Kayser v. The Hoboken Land and Improvement Company John Den James B Murray et al. · Ex parte Garland · Davidson v. New Orleans · Ex parte Robinson
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 809 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[D]isbarment and suspension proceedings are neither civil nor criminal in nature but are special proceedings, sui generis, and result from the inherent power of courts over their officers. Such proceedings are not lawsuits between parties litigant but rather are in the nature of an inquest or inquiry as to the conduct of the respondent. They are not for the purpose of punishment, but rather seek to determine the fitness of an officer of the court to continue in that capacity and to protect the courts and the public from the official ministration of persons unfit to practice. Thus the real question at issue in a disbarment proceeding is the public interest and an attorney’s right to continue to practice a profession imbued with public trust.”
46 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““To disbar an attorney is to inflict upon him a punishment of the severest character. He is admitted to the bar only after years of study. The profession may be to him the source of great emolument. If possessed of fair learning and ability, he may reasonably expect to receive from his practice an income of several thousand dollars a year, — equal to that derived from a capital of one or more hundred thousand dollars. To disbar him having such a practice is equivalent to depriving him of this capital. It would often entail poverty upon himself and destitution upon his family. Surely the tremendous power of inflicting such a punishment should never be permitted to be exercised unless absolutely necessary to protect the court and the public from one shown by the clearest legal proof to be unfit to be a member of an honorable profession.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We entertain no doubt that a court has jurisdiction without any formal complaint or petition upon its own motion to strike the name of an attorney from the roll in a proper case, provided he has had reasonable notice and been afforded an opportunity to be heard in his own defense,””
2 later decisions 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.