Melling v. Stralka’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably State v. Steffen (1994), Fred Siegel Co., L.P.A. v. Arter & Hadden (1999)
2 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
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 Glasser v. United States · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Holloway v. Arkansas · Morrison v. Steiner · DeHart v. Aetna Life Insurance
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“limiting the ability of certain members of the bar to practice before the court. Citing Sections 2(B)(1) and 5(B), Article IV of the Ohio Constitution, we held that such disciplinary rules were”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The power of the Supreme Court to exercise original jurisdiction over, and make rules governing, the practice of law in this state is set forth in Article IV of the Ohio Constitution. This express constitutional authority arose from the inherent power of the court to control the admission and disbarment of attorneys practicing before it, In re Thatcher (1909), 80 Ohio St. 492 , paragraph one of the syllabus, and is based, in large part, on the need for uniformity in the governance of the bar. To permit each of the trial and appellate courts to establish rules that generally limit the ability of attorneys to practice their profession, or that impose specific disciplinary standards upon the attorneys of this state, certainly would frustrate the purpose behind the Supreme Court's constitutionally authorized governance of the bar. " (Emphasis in the original.) State ex rel. Buck v. Maloney, 102 Ohio St.3d 250 , 2004-Ohio-2590 , at ¶ 8 , quoting Melling v. Stralka (1984), 12 Ohio St.3d 105 , 107 . As the Supreme Court found in Melling , this Court finds that the trial court's order that it would not consider any future pleadings filed by the law firm unless the law firm's attorneys began appearing for "the hearing they have ordered”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'The supreme court shall prescribe rules governing practice and procedure in all courts of the state ***. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hanni v. Hanni
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.