In Re Robertson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 9 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Ordinarily we would make Mr. Robertson’s suspension run nunc pro tunc from April 22, 1982, the date of his initial temporary suspension under Rule XI, § 11(d). In this case, however, Mr. Robertson has not filed with the court and the Board the affidavit required by Rule XI, § 14(f).... Although Mr. Robertson was temporarily suspended last April, he has not yet filed such an affidavit. To ensure that the rule is complied with, therefore, we shall direct that his six month suspension ran from the date of its filing. In re James W. Robertson, 618 A.2d 720 (D.C.1993).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 10 F. Supp. 2d 31 - United States v. Myles

2. “Upon receipt of a certified copy of an order demonstrating that an attorney subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of this court has been suspended ... by another court in the District of Columbia, the court shall forthwith enter an order suspending the attorney from the practice of law in the District of Columbia pending final disposition of any reciprocal disciplinary proceeding, and directing the attorney to show cause within thirty days from the date of the order why the identical discipline should not be imposed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 10 F. Supp. 2d 31 - United States v. Myles