In Re Harrison’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 2013
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 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334 · 28 U.S.C. § 1654
Relies on Shillitani v. United States · International Union, United Mine Workers v. Bagwell · Hicks Ex Rel. Feiock v. Feiock · Foti v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Supreme Court recently made clear that under [ 28 U.S.C. § 1654 ], corporations, partnerships, associations, and any other artificial entities may appear in federal courts only through a licensed attorney. Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194 , 202 n. 5, 113 S.Ct. 716 , 721-22 n. 5, 121 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993). A person who is not a licensed attorney and attempts to represent another person or entity in court is engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. See State ex rel. Stephan v. Williams, 246 Kan. 681 , 793 P.2d 234 (1990). Thus, both case law and a statute prevent this Court from allowing [the individual] to represent Kansas Collection Agency unless it is his sole proprietorship, and not a corporation, partnership, or other separate entity. While there is a constitutional right to represent oneself in court, so far as this Court is aware, there is no such right to represent another person or entity.”
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.