Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 361 F.2d 499 - Hackin v. Lockwood

Hackin v. Lockwood’s Empirical Analysis

361 F.2d 499 · 1966

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
December 2007
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 8 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2007 · most notably Hoover v. Ronwin (1984), Gumbhir v. Kansas State Board of Pharmacy (1982)

23 federal appellate · 8 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 11 states

29019661970198019902000decided

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: Edward T Young · Baker v. Carr · Reynolds v. Sims · Hans v. State of Louisiana · Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury

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

  1. “Examination and Admission. . . . The examination and admission of applicants for membership in the State Bar of Arizona shall conform to this Rule. For such purpose, a committee on examinations and admissions consisting of seven active members of the state bar shall be appointed by this court. . . . The committee shall examine applicants and recommend to this court for admission to practice applicants who are found by the committee to have the necessary qualifications and to fulfill the requirements prescribed by the rules of the board of governors as approved by this court respecting examinations and admissions. . . . The court will then consider the recommendations and either grant or deny admission.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[W]hatever the various states, in their respective wisdom, may require before allowing the taking of bar examination— so long as they are applicable to every citizen alike, it should be of no concern to the federal courts ... We conclude that the fundamental question here is whether Rule IV, Section 6 of the Rules Pertaining to Admission of Applicants to the State Bar of Arizona is ‘arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.’ We conclude an educational requirement of graduation from an accredited law school is not.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “In determining whether Arizona’s educational requirement is arbitrary, the fact that Abraham Lincoln and Dean Roscoe Pound had no, or little, formal legal schooling is interesting, but not conclusive. Prior to the time restrictions on admission to the bar became almost universal, for every successful lawyer who had had no formal legal training, there have been scores of incompetent lawyers practicing law, to the detriment of the public. No lawyer who has donated his time and effort to bar disciplinary proceedings can conclude otherwise.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.