In Re Donaghy’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently November 1985
3 federal appellate · 15 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 People Ex Rel. Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Lotterman · People Ex Rel. Chicago Bar Ass'n v. McCallum · The People v. Halkens · In Re Smith · In Re McCallum
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The punishment to be inflicted by disbarment of an attorney is the destruction of his professional life. Only clear and satisfactory proof can justify a decision from which would flow consequences of such a grave nature. ( People ex rel. Deneen v. Matthews, 217 Ill. 94 .) To justify disbarment the case made must be free from doubt, not only as to the act charged but as to the motive with which it was done. ( People ex rel. Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Ader, 263 Ill. 319 .) * * * The evidence of guilt of the accused with reference to the transactions charged must be clear, and it is not sufficient that the evidence shows a state of facts not entirely creditable to the respondent and the other parties to the transaction."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Such duty, and the manner in which it is exercised, must not be despotic, but the charges must be sustained by clear and convincing proof and the misconduct must be shown to have been fraudulent and the result of improper motives, and the proof must show intent, (in re Smith, 365 Ill. 11 .) The courts must not exercise their supervisory control in an arbitrary manner, but must show a legal discretion in the exercise thereof. In re Lasecki, 358 Ill. 69 .” (In re Donaghy (1948), 402 Ill. 120, 123 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Lada
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.