In Re Manville’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably Scott v. State Bar Examining Committee (1992), Matter of Shillaire (1988)
2 district · 24 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 Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NM · B.D. International Discount Corp. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. · Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal. · Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal.
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. The nature and character of the offense or offenses committed; 2. The number and duration of offenses and the sentence as to each; 3. The period of any probation or supervised release term and whether the petitioner’s adjustment to same was satisfactory; 4. The age and maturity of the applicant when the offenses were committed; 5. The grant or denial of a pardon for any offenses committed; 6. Whether the petitioner was disbarred by any other court; 7. The number of years that have elapsed since the last offense was committed, and the presence or absence of misconduct during that period; 8. Whether the petitioner has complied in all respects with the terms and conditions of prior disciplinary or remedial orders, including the payment of any costs ordered by the disbarring court; 9. Whether the petitioner has engaged or attempted or offered to engage in the unauthorized practice of law; 10. With regard to any incapacity or infirmity (including alcohol or drug abuse), whether it has ceased to exist and is not reasonably likely to recur in the future; 11. Whether the petitioner recognizes the wrongfulness and seriousness of the professional misconduct for which discipline was imposed; 12. Whether the petitioner currently has the requisite honesty and integrity to practice law; 13. The opinions of character witnesses about the applicant’s moral fitness; 14. Whether the petitioner has kept informed about recent developments in the law and is competent to practice law; 15. Any ot”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Coggin · In re Morgan“we accept findings of fact made by the Committee unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence of record. See In re Heller, 333 A.2d 401, 402 (D.C.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 840 , 96 S.Ct. 70 , 46 L.Ed.2d 59 (1975). We also make due allowance for the Committee’s opportunity to observe and evaluate the demeanor of the applicant where relevant, e.g., with regard to such attitudes as sincerity or remorse. Finally, we afford the Committee’s recommendations some deference, since the Committee has been constituted as an arm of this court to deal regularly with issues concerning admissions to the bar and exists for the express purpose of making recommendations to the court. Nevertheless, the ultimate decision regarding admission or denial of admission remains for this court to make.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Demos · In Re Demos“good moral character and general fitness to practice law”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Demos · In Re Sobin
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.