5 Arkansas opinions name it 1 courts 1993–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas 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 Petition of Shannongreen2 sentences2012This court has said that “[t]he overriding considerations on the question of readmission are the public interest, the integrity of the bar and the courts with due consideration to the rehabilitation of the petitioner with respect to good moral character and mental and emotional stability.” Anderson, 312 Ark. at 452 , 851 S.W.2d at 410 (quoting In re Petition of Shannon, 274 Ark. 106 , 108-A, 621 S.W.2d 853, 855 (1981)). 2012This court has said that “[t]he overriding considerations on the question of readmission are the public interest, the integrity of the bar and the courts with due consideration to the rehabilitation of the petitioner with respect to good moral character and mental and emotional stability.” Anderson, 312 Ark. at 452 , 851 S.W.2d at 410 (quoting In re Petition of Shannon, 274 Ark. 106 , 108-A, 621 S.W.2d 853, 855 (1981)). | 2 | 2 |
In Re Petition of Andersongreen2 sentences2015Madden, 2012 Ark. 279, at 8 , 423 S.W.3d at 43 (citing In re Petition of Anderson, 312 Ark. 447, 452 , 851 S.W.2d 408, 410 (1993)). 2012This court has said that “[t]he overriding considerations on the question of readmission are the public interest, the integrity of the bar and the courts with due consideration to the rehabilitation of the petitioner with respect to good moral character and mental and emotional stability.” Anderson, 312 Ark. at 452 , 851 S.W.2d at 410 (quoting In re Petition of Shannon, 274 Ark. 106 , 108-A, 621 S.W.2d 853, 855 (1981)). | 1 | 2 |
Martin B. v. Committee of Bar Examinersgreen2 sentences1995In Hightower v. State Bar of California, 34 Cal.3d 150 , 666 P.2d 10 (1983), the Supreme Court stated the “fundamental question remains whether petitioner is a fit and proper person to be permitted to practice, and that question usually turns upon whether he has committed or is likely to continue to commit acts of moral turpitude.” In Hightower, the Court questioned “the wisdom of denying an applicant admission to the bar if that denial rests on the applicant’s choosing to assert his innocence regarding prior charges rather than acquiesce in a pragmatic confession.” Id.; see also Martin B. v. 1995In Hightower v. State Bar of California, 34 Cal.3d 150 , 666 P.2d 10 (1983), the Supreme Court stated the “fundamental question remains whether petitioner is a fit and proper person to be permitted to practice, and that question usually turns upon whether he has committed or is likely to continue to commit acts of moral turpitude.” In Hightower, the Court questioned “the wisdom of denying an applicant admission to the bar if that denial rests on the applicant’s choosing to assert his innocence regarding prior charges rather than acquiesce in a pragmatic confession.” Id.; see also Martin B. v. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Petition for Readmission of Madden
green
2 sentences2015Madden, 2012 Ark. 279, at 8 , 423 S.W.3d at 43 (citing In re Petition of Anderson, 312 Ark. 447, 452 , 851 S.W.2d 408, 410 (1993)). 2015Madden, 2012 Ark. 279, at 8 , 423 S.W.3d at 43 (citing In re Petition of Anderson, 312 Ark. 447, 452 , 851 S.W.2d 408, 410 (1993)). | 2 | 2013–2015 |
Hightower v. State Bar
green
2 sentences1995In Hightower v. State Bar of California, 34 Cal.3d 150 , 666 P.2d 10 (1983), the Supreme Court stated the “fundamental question remains whether petitioner is a fit and proper person to be permitted to practice, and that question usually turns upon whether he has committed or is likely to continue to commit acts of moral turpitude.” In Hightower, the Court questioned “the wisdom of denying an applicant admission to the bar if that denial rests on the applicant’s choosing to assert his innocence regarding prior charges rather than acquiesce in a pragmatic confession.” Id.; see also Martin B. v. 1995In Hightower v. State Bar of California, 34 Cal.3d 150 , 666 P.2d 10 (1983), the Supreme Court stated the “fundamental question remains whether petitioner is a fit and proper person to be permitted to practice, and that question usually turns upon whether he has committed or is likely to continue to commit acts of moral turpitude.” In Hightower, the Court questioned “the wisdom of denying an applicant admission to the bar if that denial rests on the applicant’s choosing to assert his innocence regarding prior charges rather than acquiesce in a pragmatic confession.” Id.; see also Martin B. v. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.