Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 458 F.2d 1205 - Martin Erdmann v. Harold A. Stevens

Martin Erdmann v. Harold A. Stevens’s Empirical Analysis

458 F.2d 1205 · 1972

Citation profile

122
cited by 122 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
April 2011
most recently cited

59 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 122 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2011 · most notably Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n (1982), 12 Fair empl.prac.cas. 836, 11 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,755 Jane Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, Defendants (1976)

59 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions

74019721980199020002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Younger v. Harris · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Monroe v. Pape · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Dombrowski v. Pfister

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

  1. “comparable to a criminal rather than to a civil proceeding”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““While these principles were stated in cases involving state criminal proceedings, I believe that they apply with equal force to proceedings regarding the conduct of members of the state bar. The state ‘has a legitimate interest in determining whether [an individual] has the qualities of character and the professional competence requisite to the practice of law.’ Baird v. State Bar of Arizona, 401 U.S. 1, 7 , 91 S.Ct. 702, 706 , 27 L.Ed.2d 639 (1971). Indeed the state’s responsibility in these matters is primary. A lawyer to practice anywhere in the United States must first be admitted to the bar of one of the states. In New York, as in all of the states, the proper functioning of the judicial system depends upon the competence and integrity of the members of the bar and their compliance with appropriate standards of professional responsibility. Thus, when state courts do initiate an inquiry into an attorney’s conduct, they deal with a matter of such great importance to the state and its citizens that federal courts should be as slow to intervene in these proceedings as in state criminal proceedings.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It requires little vision to appreciate that if a state court were subject to the supervisory intervention of a federal overseer at the threshold of the court's initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against its own officer, the state judiciary might suffer an unfair and unnecessary blow to its integrity and effectiveness.”
    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.