Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar Association (1993)
green
· 208 citation events
across 34 courts.
Showing the 50 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199320092026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Elwell v. Byers (2012)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1570 (10th Cir. 1993) (“The mere expectation of receiving a state afforded process does not itself create an independent liberty interest protected by the Due Process clause.”).
“The mere expectation of receiving a state afforded process does not itself create an independent liberty interest protected by the Due Process clause.”
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1569 (10th Cir. 1993).
green
PJ Ex Rel. Jensen v. Wagner (2010)
See Doyle, 998 F.2d at 1570 (“The mere expectation of receiving a state afforded process does not itself create an independent liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.”).
“The mere expectation of receiving a state afforded process does not itself create an independent liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.”
green
Harrington v. Wilson (2007)
Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566-67 (10th Cir.1993).
green
Fernandez v. Greyhound Lines (2025)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566 (10th Cir. 1993) (explaining that when reviewing dismissal of a complaint, appellate court need only consider allegations raised in complaint and not new allegations raised on appeal).
explaining that when reviewing dismissal of a complaint, appellate court need only consider allegations raised in complaint and not new allegations raised on appeal
green
Blake v. JPay (2020)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566 (10th Cir. 1993) (“We are not obliged to consider the various allegations newly made by [the appellant] on appeal, since it is only the sufficiency of the complaint which is being reviewed.”); see also Cohon ex rel.
“We are not obliged to consider the various allegations newly made by [the appellant] on appeal, since it is only the sufficiency of the complaint which is being reviewed.”
green
Wideman v. United States Government (2020)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566 (10th Cir. 1993). 2 claims examiner asked “[i]f he was so disabled how could he go shop for groceries.” R. at 14 (internal quotation marks omitted).
green
Jones v. Bowers (2018)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566 (10th Cir. 1993) (“[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
“[A] private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
green
Fedorowicz v. Pearce (2016)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1570 (10th Cir.1993) (“[T]here is no constitutional right to have someone else prosecuted or disciplined.”).
green
Cleveland v. Martin (2014)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1569 (10th Cir.1993).
green
Doe v. Heil (2013)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1569 (10th Cir.1993) (“An abstract desire or unilateral hope do[es] not establish a protected [liberty] interest.”).
green
In Re Attorney Disciplinary Appeal (2011)
See In re Lynn, 505 F.3d 1323, 1323 (10th Cir.2007) (order) (“A private citizen does not have standing to initiate or maintain a disciplinary proceeding, or to appeal if a court declines to discipline an attorney.”); Ramos Colon v. United States Attorney, 576 F.2d 1, 6 , 9 n. 15 (1st Cir.1978)(“A private party cannot challenge the [district] court’s decision not to discipline”; appeal dismissed, and mandamus petition denied, based on lack of standing); In re Teitelbaum, 253 …
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566 (10th Cir.1993).
green
DeMillard v. No Named (2011)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566 (10th Cir.1993).
green
Paula Nelson v. Skehan (2010)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566-67 (10th Cir.1993).
green
Bird v. LeMaitre (2010)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1570 (10th Cir.1993) (“The threshold requirement [for a due process claim] is a sufficient allegation by the plaintiff that the plaintiff possesses a liberty or property interest.”).
green
R.W. Beck, Inc. v. E3 Consulting, LLC (2009)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566 (10th Cir.1993) (on appellate review of dismissal of complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), court will not consider “allegations newly made ... on appeal”).
green
Shupe v. Wyoming Department of Corrections (2008)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566 (10th Cir.1993)).
green
Keyter v. 535 Members of the 110th Congr (2008)
Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1567 (10th Cir. 1993).
green
Teigen v. Renfrow (2007)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1569 (10th Cir.1993).
Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1570 (10th Cir.1993).
green
Liverman v. Bush (2007)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566-67 (10th Cir.1993) (relying on Linda R.S. to affirm dismissal of action for lack of standing where plaintiff sought order compelling state authority to pursue formal complaint against attorney).
green
McDonald v. Coyle (2006)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566-67 (10th Cir.1993).
green
Robbins v. United States Bureau of Land Management (2006)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1570 (10th Cir.1993) (rejecting a due process claim based on “nothing more than a right to process”).
green
McCormick v. City of Lawrence (2004)
See *174 id. at 1566 (“private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”) (quotation omitted).
“private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another.”
Standing requires that the plaintiff must “allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.” Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566 (10th Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
internal quotation marks and citation omitted
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566 (10th Cir. 1993) (in reviewing an order granting a motion to dismiss, a court “confin[es] [its] review to the allegations of the complaint”).
in reviewing an order granting a motion to dismiss, a court “confin[es] [its] review to the allegations of the complaint”
green
Castanon v. Cathey (2019)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1570 (10th Cir. 1993) (“The mere expectation of receiving a state afforded process does not itself create an independent liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.”).
“The mere expectation of receiving a state afforded process does not itself create an independent liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.”
green
Corboy v. Louie. (2011)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566 (10th Cir. 1993)).
green
Nikki Neuendorf v. Greg Faxon, Individually, and in his capacity as a City of Catoosa police officer; James K… (2026)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566 (10th Cir. 1993)).
green
Meghann R. Miller v. Kansas Department of Children and Families, Ashley Beauchamp, in her individual and offi… (2025)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1570 (10th Cir. 1993) (mere expectation of receiving state afforded process does not itself create independent liberty interest protected by Due Process Clause). -15- child from plaintiff’s custody during visitation because deprivation of visitation rights was insu bstantial in duration and effect); see also Payne v. Wilder, No. CV 16-0312 JB/GJF, 2017 WL 3706063 , at *39 (D.N.M.
mere expectation of receiving state afforded process does not itself create independent liberty interest protected by Due Process Clause
green
Renfro v. Jennings (2025)
See Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566 (10th Cir. 1993) (“The issue of standing is jurisdictional in nature[.] . . .
“The issue of standing is jurisdictional in nature[.] . . . One does not have standing to assert a violation of rights belonging to another, since the person entitled to a right is the only one who can be directly injured by its deprivation.”
green
Escalante v. Gardner, Kansas, City of (2024)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566 (10th Cir. 1993)).
green
Webb v. Board of Judicial Conduct (2023)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1568 (10th Cir. 1993) (“[T]he right to require the State Bar to process appellant’s request for an investigation of certain lawyers is not a right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.” (quoting Saier v. State Bar of Mich., 293 F.2d 756, 761 (6th Cir. 1961))); Halliburton, 2021 WL 3883951 , at *4 (concluding, in the alternative, that private individual failed to state a Section 1983 claim based on alleged improper handling of BJC complaints).
“[T]he right to require the State Bar to process appellant’s request for an investigation of certain lawyers is not a right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.” (quoting Saier v. State Bar of Mich., 293 F.2d 756, 761 (6th Cir. 1961))
green
Frederickson v. Larimer County (2023)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1569 (10th Cir. 1993).
green
Carr v. Wells (2022)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566 (10th Cir. 1993) (in reviewing an order granting a motion to dismiss, a court “confin[es] [its] review to the allegations of the complaint”).
in reviewing an order granting a motion to dismiss, a court “confin[es] [its] review to the allegations of the complaint”
green
Fochtman, Adam v. State of Wisconsin (2021)
Wis. Feb. 13, 2006) (since OLR has prosecutorial discretion in managing matters, private citizens lack standing to bring claim for failing to properly investigation allegations of lawyer misconduct) (discussing Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566-67 (10th Cir. 1993)).
green
Dubin v. Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii (2021)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1567 (10th Cir. 1993) (“The fact is that the only one who stands to suffer direct injury in a disciplinary proceeding is the lawyer involved.
“The fact is that the only one who stands to suffer direct injury in a disciplinary proceeding is the lawyer involved. Doyle has no more standing to insert himself substantively into a license-based discipline system than he has to compel the issuance of a license.”
green
Cook v. Whyde (2021)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566 (10th Cir. 1993) (in reviewing an order granting a motion to dismiss, a court “confin[es] [its] review to the allegations of the complaint”).8 D.
in reviewing an order granting a motion to dismiss, a court “confin[es] [its] review to the allegations of the complaint”
green
Halliburton v. Gay (2021)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1568 (10th Cir. 1993) (quoting Saier v. State Bar of Mich., 293 F.2d 756, 761 (6th Cir. 1961)) (“[T]he right to require the State Bar to process appellant’s request for an investigation of certain lawyers is not a right guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.”); see also id. at 1567 (“The fact is that the only one who stands to suffer direct injury in a disciplinary proceeding is the lawyer involved.”).
quoting Saier v. State Bar of Mich., 293 F.2d 756, 761 (6th Cir. 1961)
green
Clark v. Wells Fargo Bank (2021)
“For standing to exist, the plaintiff must ‘allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief.’” Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566 (10th Cir. 1993) (quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)).
quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)
green
Andrich v. Adel (2021)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1567 (10th Cir. 1993) (“The fact is that the 14 only one who stands to suffer direct injury in a disciplinary proceeding is the lawyer 15 involved.
green
Macgowan v. Town of Castle Rock, Colorado (2020)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1570 (10th Cir. 1993) (quoting Ky. Dep’t of Corrs. v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 463 (1989)).
quoting Ky. Dep’t of Corrs. v. 490 U.S. 454, 463 (1989)
green
Petition of Sanjeev Lath & a. (2017)
Rather, the benefit of attorney discipline is bestowed upon the public at large, Merski, 121 N.H. at 909 , and “the only one who stands to suffer direct injury in a disciplinary proceeding is the lawyer involved,” Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar Assn., 998 F.2d 1559, 1567 (10th Cir. 1993).
green
Burns v. City of Concord (2015)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566-67 (10th Cir.1993)); Flores v. Satz, 137 F.3d 1275 , 1278 (11th Cir.1998) (“That the prosecution did not investigate properly or prosecute expeditiously the charges against him does not violate clearly established constitutional rights.”).
green
Barker v. Gottlieb (2013)
The injury must be “distinct and palpable, as opposed to abstract, conjectural, or merely hypothetical.” Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566 (10th Cir.1993) (citations omitted).
green
Harper v. Mancos School District Re-6 (2011)
Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1569 (10th Cir.1993).
green
Stillwell v. Lawrence (2011)
Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1569 (10th Cir.1993).
green
Fisher v. Grove Farm Co., Inc. (2009)
The injury must be “distinct and palpable, as opposed to abstract, conjectural, or merely hypothetical.” Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566 (10th Cir.1993) (citations omitted). *114 Mottl, 95 Hawai'i at 389 , 23 P.3d at 724 , quoting Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd. of Hawai’i Supreme Court, 91 Hawai'i 51, 55 , 979 P.2d 1077, 1081 (1999).
green
Hanabusa v. Lingle (2008)
The injury must be “distinct and palpable, as opposed to abstract, conjectural, or merely hypothetical.” Doyle v. Oklahoma Bar Ass’n, 998 F.2d 1559, 1566 (10th Cir.1993) (citations omitted).