Florida Bar v. Brumbaugh’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Doe v. State (1990), CHANDRIS, SA v. Yanakakis (1995)
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 35 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 Faretta v. California · Roe v. Wade · Bounds v. Smith · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Boddie v. Connecticut
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Respondent] must not, in conjunction with her business, engage in advising clients as to the various remedies available to them, or otherwise assist them in preparing those forms necessary for a dissolution proceeding. More specifically, [respondent] may not make inquiries nor answer questions from her clients as to the particular forms which might be necessary, how best to fill out such forms, where to properly file such forms, and how to present necessary evidence at the court hearings. Our specific holding with regard to the dissolution of marriage also applies to other unauthorized legal assistance such as the preparation of wills or real estate transaction documents. While [respondent] may legally sell forms in these areas, and type up instruments which have been completed by clients, she must not engage in personal legal assistance in conjunction with her business activities, including the correction of errors and omissions.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) Respondents Salvatore Davide and Florida Law Center, Inc., be enjoined from the unlicensed practice of law through issuance by the Supreme Court of Florida of a permanent injunction preventing and restraining Respondents from engaging in the acts described above and from otherwise engaging in the practice of law in the State of Florida until such time as Respondent is duly licensed to practice law in this state; and (2) That Respondents Salvatore Davide and Florida Law Center, Inc., be restrained from advertising under and using the name, Florida Law Center, Inc., or any other name that could mislead the public to believe that the business can render legal services. (3) Respondents be restrained and enjoined from the following: (A) advising persons of their rights, duties and responsibilities under Florida or Federal law and construing and interpreting the legal effect of Florida law and statutes for third parties; (B) giving legal advice and counsel to others; (C) giving advice and making decisions on behalf of others that require legal skill and a knowledge of the law greater than that possessed by the average citizen; (D) advising and/or explaining legal remedies and possible courses of action to individuals that affect their procedural and substantive legal rights, duties and privileges; (E) preparing pleadings and any other legal documents for other persons; (F) allowing members of the public to rely on Respondents to properly prepare legal forms or legal documents a”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“detailed instructions as to how the suit should be filed, notice served, hearings set, trial conducted, and the final decree secured.”
3 later decisions 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.