In Re Lavine’s Empirical Analysis
1935
Citation profile
4 district · 113 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 121 later decisions — most recently January 2014 · most notably 8 Cal. 3d 247 - Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972), 16 Cal. 3d 583 - In Re Marriage of Bouquet (1976)
4 district · 113 state decisions — followed in 14 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 Ex parte Garland · Hawker v. People of New York · Brydonjack v. State Bar · In re Day · Opinion of the Justices to the Senate
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 121 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the inherent power of this court to admit attorneys to the practice of the law and [was] tantamount to the vacating of a judicial order by legislative mandate.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The mere presentation of a pardon, without more, by an applicant, situated as is petitioner here, does not, in our opinion, satisfy the burden resting on him. of showing that he possesses that moral stamina essential to one qualified to engage in the practice of the law, for it has been held that while a pardon obliterates an offense to such an extent that for all legal purposes the one-time offender is to be relieved in the future from all its results, it does not obliterate the act itself. It puts the offender in the same position as though what he had done never had been unlawful, but it does not close the judicial eye to the fact that once he had done an act which constituted the offense. (United States v. Swift, 186 Fed. 1002 ; People v. Weeber, 26 Colo. 229 [ 57 P. 1079 , 1080].)””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“does not restore his character and cannot reinvest a person with those qualities which are absolutely essential for an attorney- at-law to possess or rehabilitate him in the trust and confidence of the court.”
2 later decisions 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.