Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 870 SW2D 343 - Ex Parte Williams

Ex Parte Williams’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
3
states following
June 2013
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently June 2013

15 state decisions

90199420002010decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Gideon v. Wainwright · United States v. Jorn · Arizona v. Washington · Brewster v. Derwinski

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

  1. “The status of a delinquent attorney not being a member of the State Bar ... does not place him in the position of being ‘unlicensed to practice law in this State’. He only has to pay his dues (he does not vacate the office of Attomey-at-Law) to resume his status as a ‘practicing lawyer’. Such attorney does not have to again show his fitness or qualifications to practice law. He does not have to be re-admitted to the practice. His competency as an attorney has not been diminished. He faces no future disbarment proceedings. He automatically resumes his status as an active member of the State Bar-The payment of his delinquent dues has the same effect for him as a nunc pro tunc judgment. He, in effect, enters a nunc pro tunc judgment for himself.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “First, in Texas, a disbarred lawyer is deemed incompetent to represent a criminal defendant as a matter of law. Curry v. Estelle, 412 F.Supp. 198, 200 (S.D.Tex. 1975), aff'd, 531 F.2d 1260 (1976); see also Erdelyan v. State, 481 S.W.2d 843, 845 (Tex.Cr.App.1972) ... As [the attorney] was disbarred prior to trial, he was not the counsel anticipated by our federal and state constitutions ... Representation by a disbarred lawyer is tantamount to no legal representation at all.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “has the right to have counsel appointed if retained counsel cannot be obtained”
    1 later decision 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.