Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 177 W. Va. 282 - Graf v. Frame

177 W. Va. 282 - Graf v. Frame’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
2
states following
October 2007
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently October 2007 · most notably 194 W. Va. 788 - Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. McGraw (1995), 181 W. Va. 260 - Committee on Legal Ethics v. Roark (1989)

26 state decisions

160198619902000decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 205

Relies on Shoup Voting Machine Corp. v. Datamedia Computer Service, Inc. · Arizona v. Manypenny · 153 W. Va. 538 - State Ex Rel. Kucera v. City of Wheeling · United States v. Mandel · 171 W. Va. 445 - Nelson v. West Virginia Public Employees Insurance Board

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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Among the criteria to be considered in determining whether a position is an office or a mere employment are whether the position was created by law; whether the position was designated [as] an office; whether the qualifications of the appointee have been prescribed; whether the duties, tenure, salary, bond and oath have been prescribed or required; and whether the one occupying the position has been constituted a representative of the sovereign.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““In Graf [v. Frame, 177 W.Va. 282 , 352 S.E.2d 31 (1986) ], we made this observation: ‘[A]n attorney who is a public official is held to a high standard of conduct because of his or her (1) professional and (2) public trustee responsibilities.’ 177 W.Va. at 288 , 352 S.E.2d at 38 . We went on in Graf to quote from Sanders v. Mississippi State Bar Ass’n, 466 So.2d 891, 893 (Miss.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844 , 106 S.Ct. 133 , 88 L.Ed.2d 109 (1985): ‘ “Lawyer insensitivity to ethical impropriety [or perceived ethical impropriety] is one of the primary sources of this lack of public confidence in the Bar. The problem is exacerbated when ethical violations are committed by an attorney holding an important public office.” ’ 177 W.Va. at 289 , 352 S.E.2d at 38 . (Emphasis added).” 181 W.Va. at 265, 382 S.E.2d at 318 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[a] writ of mandamus will not issue unless three elements coexist: (1) a clear legal right in the petitioner to the relief sought; (2) a legal duty on the part of the respondent to do the thing which the petitioner seeks to compel; and (3) the absence of another adequate remedy.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.