214 So. 2d 685 - Ex Parte Acton’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently June 2003 · most notably Burns v. Genovese (1969), 294 So. 2d 611 - Edwards v. Sims (1974)
1 federal appellate · 52 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 Ex Parte Thompson · Loveman v. Lay · Carnegie v. Carnegie · McCord v. State Ex Rel. Allen · In Re Gorsuch
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.
“Charge 7 recites: "CHARGE SEVEN “(Violation of Rule 25, Section A) “On, to-wit, January 27, 1965, the said attorney did submit to the Circuit Court, Tenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama, a divorce case, namely, George E. Anderson vs. Loretta A. Anderson, in Equity, Case No. 137-515, wherein the Bill of Complaint and deposition of complainant represented to the Court that the complainant was a bona fide resident of the State of Alabama, when, in truth and in fact, the said attorney knew, or had reasonable cause-to believe, that neither the complainant - nor the respondent was a bona fide resident of the State of Alabama. “The Grievance Committee charge that in doing the above described acts, the said attorney was guilty of violating or failing to comply with Rule 25 of Section A of the Rules Governing the Conduct of All Persons Admitted to the Practice of Law in the State of Alabama, the same having been heretofore attached to the pleadings in this cause.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Rule 27 does not make guilty of misconduct an attorney who merely fails to pay over money collected for his client. The concluding proviso of the rule makes bad faith or fraud on the part of the attorney a necessary element of the offense charged. * * * petitioner cannot be found guilty of violating that rule unless the attending circumstances ‘are such as to satisfy the Board that the attorney acted in had faith or with fraudulent purpose.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'No person heretofore or hereafter admitted to practice law in Alabama shall: ‘27. Misappropriate the funds of his client, either by failing to pay over money collected by him for his client, or by appropriating to his own use funds entrusted to his keeping, provided the circumstances attending the transaction are such as to satisfy the Board that the attorney acted in bad faith or with fraudulent purpose.’”
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.