In Re Morris’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably Franklin v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (1995), 85 Wash. 2d 462 - In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Krogh (1975)
2 federal appellate · 23 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 Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NM · District of Columbia v. Clawans · Barsky v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York · District of Columbia v. Colts · BAKER, ETC. v. Miller
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hereas the first offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor when considered with the penalty provided was held by us to be a petty offense, it does not follow that the offense of involuntary manslaughter, which requires a much greater penalty, is likewise a petty offense. Under our law it is clearly a felony. While not prepared to declare that in every case where a felony has been committed by a member of the bar disciplinary action is justified or required, as contended by the board of bar commissioners, we must concede that we have difficulty in imagining what kind of a felony could be considered as not being "contrary to honesty, justice or good morals...." That the act may or may not be a misdemeanor or a felony is purely coincidental. Similarly, moral turpitude is not a consideration. If a member of the bar commits a crime involving moral turpitude, this fact is conclusive against him and discipline is required. However, whether the misconduct with which a person is charged is a crime involving moral turpitude or, if a crime, whether it is malum prohibitum or malum in se; or, for that matter, if the act is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor, is not the issue.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]hat the act may or may not be a misdemeanor or a felony, is purely coincidental.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“`[e]verything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals ...'”
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.