In Re Durant’s Empirical Analysis
1907
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 121 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 134 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2009 · most notably Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal. (1961), Batick v. Seymour (1982)
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 121 state decisions — followed in 20 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 Wall · Butchers' Union Slaughter-House Live-Stock Landing Co v. Crescent Slaughter-House Co · O'brien's Petition · Bar Ass'n v. Greenhood · Fairfield County Bar v. Taylor
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 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The power to declare this forfeiture is a summary one inherent in the courts, and exists not to mete out punishment to an offendent, but that the administration of justice may be safeguarded and the courts and the public protected from the misconduct or unfitness of those who are licensed to perform the important functions of the legal profession. Ex parte Bradley, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 364, 374; Fairfield County Bar v. Taylor, 60 Conn. 11, 12 , 22 Atl. 441 ; Bar Assoc. v. Greenhood, 168 Mass. 169 , 46 N. E. 568 ; Ex parte Brounsall, 2 Cowper, 829. “The action of the court in the exercise of this power is judicial in its character, but the inquiry made is fin the nature of an investigation by the court into the conduct of one of its own officers, not the trial of an action or suit,’ and the order entered is but an exercise of the disciplinary jurisdiction which it has over such officers. Fairfield County Bar v. Taylor [supra] ; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. (U. S.) 333, 378 ; In re Hardwick, 12 Q. B. 148, 149. The real question for determination, in such proceedings, is whether or not the attorney is ‘a fit person to be longer allowed the privileges of being an attorney.’ Fairfield County Bar v. Taylor, 60 Conn. 11, 16 , 22 Atl. 441 . Into its determination there naturally and necessarily enters a large measure of judicial discretion. Fairfield County Bar v. Taylor [supra] ; Ex parte Burr, 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 529, 530 ; Ex parte Secombe, 19 How. (U. S.) 9, 13 ; Ex parte Wall, 107 U. S. ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex parte Cashin
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.