In Re Vaughan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 state decisions

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

1. ““It is insisted by appellant that the court erred in allowing him to be called to the stand and compelled to testify over his objection. He contends the disbarment proceedings are in the nature of a criminal action and that the accused in such a case should be accorded the same right to refuse to testify as is a defendant charged with the commission of a crime. This position cannot be maintained. Although it has been held that an accusation is in the nature of a criminal charge (Matter of Haymond, 121 Cal. 385 [ 53 Pac. 899 ]), and that a proceeding on such a charge is a quasi- criminal action (In re McCowan, 177 Cal. 93 [ 170 Pac. 1100 ]), ‘this court has uniformly Heated disbarment proceedings as a peculiar to themselves, and governed exclusively by the Code sections specifically covering them’. (Matter of Danford, 157 Cal. 425 [ 108 Pac. 322 ].) The purpose of such a proceeding is to determine the fitness of an officer of the court to continue in that capacity, and it has been said the disbarment of attorneys is not intended for the punishment of the individual but for the protection of the courts and the legal profession. (Ex parte Finley, 97 S. C. 37 [ 81 S. E. 279 ].)””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fish v. the State Bar