Standing Committee on Discipline of United States District Court v. Yagman’s Empirical Analysis
55 F.3d 1430 · 1995
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 10 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 120 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably Knievel v. ESPN (2005), 121 Cal. App. 4th 883 - Wilbanks v. Wolk (2004)
30 federal appellate · 10 district · 40 state decisions — followed in 22 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.
Relationships
Relies on New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Sheppard v. Maxwell · Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. · Garrison v. State of Louisiana
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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a party cannot force a judge to recuse himself by engaging in personal attacks on the judge”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A statement of opinion based on fully disclosed facts can be punished only if the ... facts are themselves false and demeaning.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This court certifies attorneys for practice to protect the public and the administration of justice. That certification implies that the individual admitted to practice law exhibits a sound capacity for judgment. Where an attorney criticizes the bench and bar, the issue is not simply whether the criticized individual has been harmed, but rather whether the criticism impugning the integrity of judge or legal officer adversely affects the administration of justice and adversely reflects on the accuser’s capacity for sound judgment. An attorney who makes critical statements regarding judges and legal officers with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity and who brings frivolous actions against members of the bench and bar exhibits a lack of judgment that conflicts with his of her position as “an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for the quality of justice.” Because of the interest in protecting the public, the administration of justice and the profession, a purely subjective standard is inappropriate. The standard applied must reflect that level of competence, of sense of responsibility to the legal system, of understanding of legal rights and of legal procedures to be used only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others, that is essential to the character of an attorney practicing in Minnesota. Thus, we hold that the standard must be an objective one dependent on what the reasonable attorney, considered in”
2 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.