Daley 1974 Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Supreme Court of Illinois’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 8 district · 24 state decisions

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

1. ““The legislative history of 18 U.S.C. §§ 6001-03 illustrates that one of the concerns of Congress in revising the prior immunity laws was the clarification of the roles of the various governmental branches in the immunity process so as to avoid potential constitutional conflicts. [Citation.] The role of the federal court is restricted to a ministerial function. The court may scrutinize the record to ascertain that a request for immunity is, under the statute, jurisdietionally and procedurally well-founded and accompanied by the approval of the Attorney General. [Citation.] Under no circumstances, however, may a federal court prescribe immunity on its own initiative, or determine whether application for an immunity order which is both jurisdietionally and procedurally well-founded is necessary, advisable, or reflective of the public interest, for the federal judiciary may not arrogate a prerogative specifically withheld by Congress.” In re Daley, 549 F.2d 469, 479 (7th Cir. 1977).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 235 Ill. 2d 299 - People v. Ousley · 673 F. Supp. 1138 - In Re Grand Jury Proceedings

2. “[a] resolution regarding the alleged criminality of a person’s acts, [are] a determination of the moral fitness of an attorney to continue in the practice of law. Although conduct which could form the basis for a criminal prosecution might also underlie the institution of disciplinary proceedings, the focus is upon gauging an individual’s character and fitness, and not upon adjudging the criminality of his prior acts or inflicting punishment for them.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Manning Engineering, Inc. v. Hudson County Park Commission · 275 F. Supp. 2d 177 - Romero-Barcelo v. Acevedo-Vila

3. “[A] clear distinction exists between proceedings whose essence is penal, intend ed to redress criminal wrongs by imposing sentences of imprisonment, other types of detention or commitment, or fines, and proceedings whose purpose is remedial ...”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 714 F. Supp. 428 - United States v. Carlson · 275 F. Supp. 2d 177 - Romero-Barcelo v. Acevedo-Vila