Randall v. Brigham’s Empirical Analysis
74 U.S. 523 · 1868
Citation profile
91 federal appellate · 37 district · 90 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 347 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Scheuer v. Rhodes (1974), Pierson v. Ray (1967)
91 federal appellate · 37 district · 90 state decisions — followed in 33 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 Wise v. Withers · In the Matter of the Application of Henry W. Cooper · Weaver v. Devendorf · Case of Austin
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 347 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is not necessary that proceedings against attorneys for malpractice, or any unprofessional conduct, should be founded upon formal allegations against them. Such proceedings are often instituted upon information developed in the progress of a cause; or from what the court learns of the conduct of the attorney from its own observation. Sometimes they are moved by third parties upon affidavit, and sometimes they are taken by the court upon its own motion. All that is requisite to their validity is that, when not taken for matters occurring in open court, in the presence of the judges, notice should be given to the attorney of the charges made, and opportunity afforded him for explanation and defense. The manner in which the proceeding shall be conducted, so that it be without oppression or unfairness, is a matter of judicial regulation.””
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Savin · In re Ming““In the present ease we have looked into-the authorities, and are clear, from them, as well as from the principle on which any exemption is maintained, that the qualifying-words used were, not necessary to a correct statement of the law, and that judges of' courts of superior or general jurisdiction are-not liable to civil actions for their judicial acts, even when such acts are in excess of' their jurisdiction, and are alleged to have-been done maliciously or corruptly. A distinction must be here observed between excess of • jurisdiction and the clear absence of all jurisdiction over the subject-matter.””
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““All that is requisite to their validity (the proceedings to disbar) is - that, when not taken for matters occurring in open court, in the presence of the judges, notice should be given to the attorney of the charges made and opportunity afforded him for explanation and defense. The manner in which the proceeding shall be conducted, so that it be without oppression or unfairness, is a matter of judicial regulation.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.