In the Matter of Julian J. Roberts Attorney-At-Law. Appeal of Julian J. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2019
6 district · 1 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 Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Buckley v. Valeo · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NM · Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen a choice of either a federal or a state forum is available in a particular case an attorney admitted only to the federal court may choose that forum solely for that reason, possibly disregarding the interests of his client.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may from time to time prescribe rules for the conduct of their business. Such rules shall be consistent with Acts of Congress and rules of practice and procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2071 . In all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel as, by the rules of such courts, respectively, are permitted to manage and conduct causes therein. 28 U.S.C. § 1654 Each district court by action of a majority of the judges thereof may from time to time make and amend rules governing its practice not inconsistent with these rules. Copies of rules and amendments so made by any district court shall upon their promulgation be furnished to the Supreme Court of the United States. In all cases not provided for by rule, the district courts may regulate their practice in any manner not inconsistent with these rules. Rule 83, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brown v. McGarr“We believe that the exemptions extended to certain patent lawyers and lawyers representing the United States and its agencies ... are based on reasonable distinctions related to the court’s interest in ensuring the competence of counsel appearing before it. Attorneys admitted to practice before the patent office must pass a uniform, national examination. This procedure serves as an adequate substitute for state examination for determining fitness to practice in this limited area of federal law.... In the case of counsel representing the United States, the court's interest in ensuring competence of lawyers appearing before it is satisfied by its reliance on the government to exercise care in the selection and supervision of its lawyers. [That exception] reasonably accommodates the government’s interest in representation without arbitrarily discriminating against attorneys engaged in private practice.”
1 later decision 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.