Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 208 F.2d 18 - Brooks v. Laws

Brooks v. Laws’s Empirical Analysis

208 F.2d 18 · 1953

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Willner v. Committee on Character and Fitness, Appellate Div. of Supreme Court of NY, First Judicial Dept. (1963), 407 F. Supp. 451 - Turner v. American Bar Ass'n (1975)

25 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions

1001953196019701980199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1654

Relies on Bradley v. Fisher · Ex parte Garland · Pargoud v. United States · Goldsmith v. United States Board of Tax Appeals · In re Summers

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

  1. ““The expression ‘A claim of a present right to admission to the bar’ means something more than a mere application under the rules of court. There is no inherent right to practice law. The right arises after qualifications under the rules has been established.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In Maryland the distinction between barristers and attorneys did not exist, and practicing lawyers were ‘attorneys.’ The statute of 4 Henry IV, above quoted, was apparently deemed to be in force and applied to all lawyers. In 1715 the Maryland Assembly enacted a statute that ‘no attorney, or • other person whatsoever, shall practice the law in any of the courts of this province, without being admitted thereto by the justices of the several courts, who are hereby empowered to admit and suspend them.’ This appears to have been the only Maryland statute relating to the admission of attorneys in effect in 1799, when Herty’s Digest was published, or in 1799-1800, when Kilty’s Laws of Maryland was published. There was in Maryland an act passed in 1783 which gave to a rejected applicant in the courts of first instance an appeal to the superior courts, but this statute apparently expired by its own terms after three years. This right of appeal was considered by the Court of Appeals of Maryland in State v. Johnston in May, 1786. It is plain from that report that no appeal existed other than the strictly limited one granted by that statute.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The District of Columbia Court of Appeals shall make such rules as it deems proper respecting the examination, qualification, and admission of persons to membership in its bar, and their censure, suspension, and expulsion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.