Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 243 Ga. 134 - In Re Beasley

In Re Beasley’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
7
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Roy Richard Dittman v. State of California (1999), In Re Cason (1982)

30 state decisions

11019791980199020002010decided

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 Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NM · Willner v. Committee on Character and Fitness, Appellate Div. of Supreme Court of NY, First Judicial Dept. · Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer · Iannelli v. United States

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

  1. “In proceedings of this nature, the burden clearly rests upon the applicant to prove that he possesses the requisite character and moral fitness. . . . False, misleading or evasive answers to bar application questionnaires may be grounds for a finding of lack of requisite character and fitness. [Cits.] In re Beasley, 243 Ga. 134, 136, 137 ( 252 SE2d 615 ) (1979).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[f]ailure to honor legal commitments and obligations is a proper ground for refusing to issue a certificate as to possession of the requisite character and moral fitness.”
    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.