In the Matter of John Ruffalo Jr’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
410 federal appellate · 88 district · 1,089 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,075 later decisions (35 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2025 · most notably Wolff v. McDonnell (1974), Fuentes v. Shevin (1972)
410 federal appellate · 88 district · 1,089 state decisions — followed in 46 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedIn re Ruffalo (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 45 U.S.C. § 60 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)
Relies on Gault · In re Oliver · Bouie v. City of Columbia · Spevack v. Klein
Cited together with Theard v. United States · Spevack v. Klein · In Re Robert J Snyder · Mathews v. Eldridge · Wall
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 2,075 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“adversary proceedings of a quasi-criminal nature”
46 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[d]isbarment, designed to protect the public, is a punishment or penalty imposed on the lawyer.”
23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1. That the state procedure from want of notice or opportunity to be heard was wanting in due process; 2, that there was such an infirmity of proof as to facts found to have established the want of fair private and professional character as to give rise to a clear conviction on our part that we could not consistently with our duty accept as final the conclusion on that subject; or 3, that some other grave reason existed which should convince us that to allow the natural consequences of the judgment to have their effect would conflict with the duty which rests upon us not to disbar except upon the conviction that, under the principles of right and justice, we were constrained so to do.”
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Ming · In re Edelstein
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.