Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 239 F.3d 498 - Committee on Grievances of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York v. Feinman

Committee on Grievances of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York v. Feinman’s Empirical Analysis

239 F.3d 498 · 2001

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
March 2013
most recently cited

7 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Metromedia Co. v. Fugazy · Franklin v. Aycock · Grievance Committee for the Eastern District of New York v. Jacobs · Cherry, Et Ux. v. Heffernan

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

  1. “[The respondent attorney] also claims that “[t]here was such an infirmity of proof establishing the alleged misconduct as to give rise to the clear1 conviction that this court could not, consistent with its duties, accept as final the conclusion of the other court.” While it is true that, should [he] prove the above state of affairs by clear and convincing evidence, this Court would not impose reciprocal discipline, [he] must do more than state the existence of his defense to carry that burden. [The respondent attorney] presents no evidence in support of his statement and, in fact, admits to engaging in the conduct for which he was disbarred.... Therefore, this Court finds that [he] has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was any infirmity of proof whatsoever establishing the alleged misconduct....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “establishes by clear and convincing evidence (i) that there was such an infirmity of proof of misconduct by the attorney as to give rise to the clear conviction that this court could not consistent with its duty accept as final the conclusion of the other court, or (ii) that the procedure resulting in the investigation or discipline of the attorney by the other court was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process, or (iii) that the imposition of discipline by this court would result in grave injustice.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “by arguing that defects in the [state court] proceedings justify lesser discipline, [the respondent attorney] seeks a review of the merits of the state proceedings that is beyond the circumscribed scope of review in reciprocal disciplinary proceedings”
    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.