2 Cal. 2d 75 - Marsh v. State Bar’s Empirical Analysis
1934
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently September 1993 · most notably Maryland State Bar Ass'n v. Phoebus (1975), 9 Cal. 3d 704 - Lewis v. State Bar (1973)
3 federal appellate · 33 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 Matter of Danford · Fish v. the State Bar · In Re Vaughan · In Re Petersen · Marsh v. State Bar of California
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The penalty being designed not to punish the individual but to protect the public, the courts, and the legal profession, is it not clear that, in order to fulfill such purpose, the prior record of an attorney must be taken into consideration in determining his fitness to continue in practice? If the prior attempt at discipline has been ineffective to cure the evil, as witness the fact that the same offense has been repeated, then such further penalty should be imposed as will tend to either effect the reformation of the offender or else remove him entirely from the practice. Thus, although the penalty for a repeated offense may be much greater than would have been imposed were it a first offense, such increased penalty is not a ‘meting out’ of further punishment for prior acts, as contended by petitioner, but is an adjudication of the attorney’s fitness to continue in practice. “It is well established that mitigating circumstances may be considered in determining the punishment to be imposed in disciplinary proceedings, such as the motives and purpose which actuated the accused, his previous good record,. . . and the fact that he was not guilty of intentional wrong-doing. “If such mitigating circumstances may be considered in alleviating or lightening the penalty, does it not follow that incriminating circumstances, such as the previous poor record of an accused, his years of practice, knowledge of wrong-doing, repeated misconduct, etc., may likewise be considered in determi”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“a repetition of offenses for which an accused has previously been disciplined”
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.