Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 76 F.3d 335 - In Re David L Smith

In Re David L Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
October 2012
most recently cited

1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently October 2012

1 state decisions

40199020002010decided

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 United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. · In Re David L Smith · Johnson v. Bd. of County Com'rs County of Fremont

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “On December 14, 1995, this panel entered an order requiring respondent David L. Smith to show cause why he should not be disbarred for violating this court’s November 1993 suspension order and for practicing in this court without authorization. ... [[Image here]] During the course of his suspension, Mr. Smith continued to file briefs in this court. In particular, the court has identified four appeals in which Mr. Smith appears to have drafted briefs on behalf of the allegedly pro se appellants. Those appeals are 94-1127, Qualls v. Regional Transportation District, 94-1130,. Dunkin v. Louisiana Pacific Corporation, 94-1317, Howard v. Mail-Well Envelope Company, and 95-1198, Seales v. Jefferson County School District R-l. The December 14 show cause order was the culmination of this court’s efforts to have Mr. Smith explain his involvement in these appeals. In his response, Mr. Smith readily admits, as he has before, that he wrote and submitted briefs in this court following the issuance of our suspension order. He maintains, however, that those submissions are not in violation of this court’s order because he signed two of the briefs in question and included footnotes admitting his involvement in the other two.... The argument follows that because he admits his assistance, he cannot be subject to discipline. Mr. Smith’s arguments misper-ceive the nature of the problem. Mr. Smith was advised, in very clear terms, that he no longer had permission to practice law in this court. He”
    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.