15 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1927–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In Re Russellgreen2 sentences1971As this court has previously stated: “The protection of the public, not the punishment of the attorney guilty of unprofessional conduct, is the ' rule by which the courts are guided in solving the question whether a member of the bar should be allowed to- continue to practice * * *. ” In Re Russell, 57 Ariz. 395, 406 , 114 P.2d 241, 245 (1941). 1971As this court has previously stated: “The protection of the public, not the punishment of the attorney guilty of unprofessional conduct, is the ' rule by which the courts are guided in solving the question whether a member of the bar should be allowed to- continue to practice * * *. ” In Re Russell, 57 Ariz. 395, 406 , 114 P.2d 241, 245 (1941). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Russellgreen2 sentences1988Id., citing State v. Russell, 227 Kan. 897 , 610 P.2d 1122 (1980). *455 FACTUAL CHARACTERIZATION In disciplinary proceedings against a member of the state bar, this court gives great weight to local committees' findings and conclusions. 1988Id., citing State v. Russell, 227 Kan. 897 , 610 P.2d 1122 (1980). *455 FACTUAL CHARACTERIZATION In disciplinary proceedings against a member of the state bar, this court gives great weight to local committees' findings and conclusions. | 1 | 2 |
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Smithgreen1 sentence2019One such limitation is that “[r]egardless of his persuasive powers, an advocate who is not a member of the bar may not represent clients (other than himself) in court.” Id.; see also Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 (1975) (the Sixth Amendment provides an independent right for self-representation). ¶5 Under Article 3 of the Arizona constitution, “the practice of law is a matter exclusively within the authority of the Judiciary.” In re Creasy, 198 Ariz. 539, 541, ¶ 6 (2000) (quoting In re Smith, 189 Ariz. 144, 146 (1997)). | 1 | 1 |
Faretta v. Californiagreen1 sentence2019One such limitation is that “[r]egardless of his persuasive powers, an advocate who is not a member of the bar may not represent clients (other than himself) in court.” Id.; see also Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 (1975) (the Sixth Amendment provides an independent right for self-representation). ¶5 Under Article 3 of the Arizona constitution, “the practice of law is a matter exclusively within the authority of the Judiciary.” In re Creasy, 198 Ariz. 539, 541, ¶ 6 (2000) (quoting In re Smith, 189 Ariz. 144, 146 (1997)). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Creasygreen1 sentence2019One such limitation is that “[r]egardless of his persuasive powers, an advocate who is not a member of the bar may not represent clients (other than himself) in court.” Id.; see also Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 (1975) (the Sixth Amendment provides an independent right for self-representation). ¶5 Under Article 3 of the Arizona constitution, “the practice of law is a matter exclusively within the authority of the Judiciary.” In re Creasy, 198 Ariz. 539, 541, ¶ 6 (2000) (quoting In re Smith, 189 Ariz. 144, 146 (1997)). | 1 | 1 |
Haberkorn v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.green1 sentence2016Second Ave., Flagstaff, Ariz., 193 Ariz. 1 , 2 n.1 (App. 1997) (finding that where only the husband signed the notice of appeal, and he was not an attorney, he could not represent his wife in court and the notice of appeal was invalid as to her); Haberkorn v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 5 Ariz. App. 397, 399 (1967) (holding that a husband who is not a member of the bar may not represent his wife in a court of law. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Aufmuthgreen2 sentences2012See, e.g., Dugan, 457 A.2d at 6 (“Goodwill is to be differentiated from earning capacity.”); In re Marriage of Aufmuth, 89 Cal.App.3d 446 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 668, 679 (1979) (“At the time of trial, husband was 31 years old and had been a member of the bar for only seven years. 2012See, e.g., Dugan, 457 A.2d at 6 (“Goodwill is to be differentiated from earning capacity.”); In re Marriage of Aufmuth, 89 Cal.App.3d 446 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 668, 679 (1979) (“At the time of trial, husband was 31 years old and had been a member of the bar for only seven years. | 1 | 1 |
Dugan v. Dugangreen1 sentence2012See, e.g., Dugan, 457 A.2d at 6 (“Goodwill is to be differentiated from earning capacity.”); In re Marriage of Aufmuth, 89 Cal.App.3d 446 , 152 Cal.Rptr. 668, 679 (1979) (“At the time of trial, husband was 31 years old and had been a member of the bar for only seven years. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Raggiogreen2 sentences1984In re Woodward, 300 S.W.2d 385, 393-94 (Mo. 1957); e.g., State v. Russell, 227 Kan. 897, 901-02 , 610 P.2d 1122, 1126 (1980); In re Raggio, 87 Nev. 369, 370-71 , 487 P.2d 499, 501 (1971). 1984In re Woodward, 300 S.W.2d 385, 393-94 (Mo. 1957); e.g., State v. Russell, 227 Kan. 897, 901-02 , 610 P.2d 1122, 1126 (1980); In re Raggio, 87 Nev. 369, 370-71 , 487 P.2d 499, 501 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Woodwardgreen2 sentences1984In re Woodward, 300 S.W.2d 385, 393-94 (Mo. 1957); e.g., State v. Russell, 227 Kan. 897, 901-02 , 610 P.2d 1122, 1126 (1980); In re Raggio, 87 Nev. 369, 370-71 , 487 P.2d 499, 501 (1971). 1984In re Woodward, 300 S.W.2d 385, 393-94 (Mo.1957); e.g., State v. Russell, 227 Kan. 897, 901-02 , 610 P.2d 1122, 1126 (1980); In re Raggio, 87 Nev. 369, 370-71 , 487 P.2d 499, 501 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Everettgreen2 sentences1979It is most unfair to the accused as well as bringing our disciplinary procedure into disrepute." In Re Everett, 80 Ariz. 124, 128 , 293 P.2d 928, 931 (1956). 1979It is most unfair to the accused as well as bringing our disciplinary procedure into disrepute." In Re Everett, 80 Ariz. 124, 128 , 293 P.2d 928, 931 (1956). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. One Single Family Residence At 1810 East Second Avenue
green
1 sentence2016Second Ave., Flagstaff, Ariz., 193 Ariz. 1 , 2 n.1 (App. 1997) (finding that where only the husband signed the notice of appeal, and he was not an attorney, he could not represent his wife in court and the notice of appeal was invalid as to her); Haberkorn v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 5 Ariz. App. 397, 399 (1967) (holding that a husband who is not a member of the bar may not represent his wife in a court of law. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Matter of Beren
green
2 sentences1994178 Ariz. 400 (1994) 874 P.2d 320 In the MATTER OF a Member of the state bar of Arizona, Peter D. 1994178 Ariz. 400 (1994) 874 P.2d 320 In the MATTER OF a Member of the state bar of Arizona, Peter D. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
In Re a Member of the State Bar of Arizona, Kersting
green
1 sentence1988Id., citing State v. Russell, 227 Kan. 897 , 610 P.2d 1122 (1980). *455 FACTUAL CHARACTERIZATION In disciplinary proceedings against a member of the state bar, this court gives great weight to local committees' findings and conclusions. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
In re Cassidy
green
2 sentences1975Application of Cassidy, 268 App.Div. 282 , 51 N.Y.S.2d 202 (1944), rearg. den. 270 App.Div. 1046 , 63 N.Y.S.2d 840 , affd 296 N.Y. 926 , 72 N.E.2d 41 (1947). 1975Application of Cassidy, 268 App.Div. 282 , 51 N.Y.S.2d 202 (1944), rearg. den. 270 App.Div. 1046 , 63 N.Y.S.2d 840 , affd 296 N.Y. 926 , 72 N.E.2d 41 (1947). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Matter of Cassidy
yellow
1 sentence1975Application of Cassidy, 268 App.Div. 282 , 51 N.Y.S.2d 202 (1944), rearg. den. 270 App.Div. 1046 , 63 N.Y.S.2d 840 , affd 296 N.Y. 926 , 72 N.E.2d 41 (1947). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
People ex rel. Calderazzo v. Stiner
neutral
1 sentence1975Application of Cassidy, 268 App.Div. 282 , 51 N.Y.S.2d 202 (1944), rearg. den. 270 App.Div. 1046 , 63 N.Y.S.2d 840 , affd 296 N.Y. 926 , 72 N.E.2d 41 (1947). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Stillpass v. Soloff
neutral
1 sentence1975Application of Cassidy, 268 App.Div. 282 , 51 N.Y.S.2d 202 (1944), rearg. den. 270 App.Div. 1046 , 63 N.Y.S.2d 840 , affd 296 N.Y. 926 , 72 N.E.2d 41 (1947). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Reich v. Reich
green
2 sentences1972It is axiomatic that the allowance of attorney’s fees is discretionary with the trial court, Reich v. Reich, 13 Ariz.App. 98 , 474 P.2d 457 (1970), and it was not inappropriate for the trial judge to draw upon his own knowledge of the case and his own experience in determining whether $4,420 was a reasonable fee. 1972It is axiomatic that the allowance of attorney’s fees is discretionary with the trial court, Reich v. Reich, 13 Ariz.App. 98 , 474 P.2d 457 (1970), and it was not inappropriate for the trial judge to draw upon his own knowledge of the case and his own experience in determining whether $4,420 was a reasonable fee. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
State Bar of Arizona v. Arizona Land Title & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1967In the case of State Bar of Arizona v. Arizona Land Title and Trust Co., 90 Ariz. 76 , 366 P.2d 1 , we devoted much attention to the definition of the practice of law. 1967In the case of State Bar of Arizona v. Arizona Land Title and Trust Co., 90 Ariz. 76 , 366 P.2d 1 , we devoted much attention to the definition of the practice of law. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Elliott v. Henck
green
1 sentence1963Although 'the exact point was not involved, the Texas Court of Civil Appeals stated in Elliott v. Henck, Tex.Civ.App., 223 S.W.2d 292 , 296: “We overrule appellant’s third point reading. ‘The contract in question having been prepared by the appellee, Arthur Henck, or in his office under his direction and by a person not a licensed lawyer or a member of the bar is unenforceable, and the appellee Arthur Henck is liable to appellant for the amount of the earnest money as the loss or damage she would sustain if such contract were enforced.’ ” Defendant cites Martineau v. Gresser, 182 N.E.2d 48 (Oh | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Martineau v. Gresser
green
1 sentence1963Although 'the exact point was not involved, the Texas Court of Civil Appeals stated in Elliott v. Henck, Tex.Civ.App., 223 S.W.2d 292 , 296: “We overrule appellant’s third point reading. ‘The contract in question having been prepared by the appellee, Arthur Henck, or in his office under his direction and by a person not a licensed lawyer or a member of the bar is unenforceable, and the appellee Arthur Henck is liable to appellant for the amount of the earnest money as the loss or damage she would sustain if such contract were enforced.’ ” Defendant cites Martineau v. Gresser, 182 N.E.2d 48 (Oh | 1 | 1963–1963 |
In re Silkman
green
1 sentence1930In support of this argument, respondent cites the following cases: In re Silkman, 88 App. Div. 102 , 84 N. Y. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
In re Silkman
green
1 sentence1930In support of this argument, respondent cites the following cases: In re Silkman, 88 App. Div. 102 , 84 N. Y. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
In re Breen
green
1 sentence1930The same rule has been upheld in the following cases: State v. Martin, 45 Wash. 76 , 87 Pac. 1054 ; In re Breen, 30 Nev. 164 , 17 L. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
In Re Burton
green
2 sentences1930If his suspension or removal as a member of the bar results in his disqualification for some other office, that effect is but incidental, and is due to the provisions of the law which make his office as an attorney at law a requisite qualification for such other office.” In the case of In re Burton, 67 Utah 118 , 246 Pac. 188 , the same contention was made as by the respondent herein, and the court after reviewing the cases held that his position did not relieve him from disbarment proceedings, even though he at the time held a judicial position, but expressly stated that the court dealt only 1930If his suspension or removal as a member of the bar results in his disqualification for some other office, that effect is but incidental, and is due to the provisions of the law which make his office as an attorney at law a requisite qualification for such other office.” In the case of In re Burton, 67 Utah 118 , 246 Pac. 188 , the same contention was made as by the respondent herein, and the court after reviewing the cases held that his position did not relieve him from disbarment proceedings, even though he at the time held a judicial position, but expressly stated that the court dealt only | 1 | 1930–1930 |
State ex rel. Dill v. Martin
neutral
2 sentences1930The same rule has been upheld in the following cases: State v. Martin, 45 Wash. 76 , 87 Pac. 1054 ; In re Breen, 30 Nev. 164 , 17 L. 1930The same rule has been upheld in the following cases: State v. Martin, 45 Wash. 76 , 87 Pac. 1054 ; In re Breen, 30 Nev. 164 , 17 L. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
In re Bailey
green
2 sentences1927The other accusations, being directed at conduct of respondent before and at the time he became a member of this bar, it is strenuously insisted are not proper grounds for disbarment, and that, if they were, they are barred by section 13, chapter 32, Laws of 1925, reading as follows: “The Supreme Court may revoke the license of any attorney at any time within five years after same is granted, upon satisfactory showing that the same was obtained by false representation, fraud or deceit.” It was established beyond any doubt that the Wendell Bailey, who in March, 1915, was fined for contempt by t 1927Cas. 1917B 1198, 146 Pac. 1101 ), for practicing law without a license in violation of the laws of that state,'and the Cordon W. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.