§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Donald William Leo, a Disbarred Attorney, Appellant.

Brief

57 Cited authorities

  1. Richardson v. Perales

    402 U.S. 389 (1971)   Cited 55,577 times
    Holding that, when "presented with the not uncommon situation of conflicting medical evidence . . . [t]he trier of fact has the duty to resolve that conflict"

  2. Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa

    539 U.S. 90 (2003)   Cited 2,453 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that circumstantial evidence alone can sustain a mixed-motive verdict

  3. Pell v. Board of Education

    34 N.Y.2d 222 (N.Y. 1974)   Cited 5,553 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing the standard of review in an Article 78 appeal

  4. Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners

    353 U.S. 232 (1957)   Cited 974 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state cannot exclude a person from the practice of law based on failure to satisfy its standards of qualification "when there is no basis for their finding that he fails to meet these standards"

  5. Dalton v. Educ. Testing Serv

    87 N.Y.2d 384 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 880 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that defendant testing service breached the implied covenant by ignoring evidence it invited the plaintiff to submit

  6. Spevack v. Klein

    385 U.S. 511 (1967)   Cited 628 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the privilege protects a lawyer who refuses to give testimony that might incriminate himself

  7. Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper

    470 U.S. 274 (1985)   Cited 236 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that New Hampshire rule excluding nonresidents from bar violated Clause

  8. Matter of Scherbyn v. Boces

    77 N.Y.2d 753 (N.Y. 1991)   Cited 530 times
    Finding that Article 78 review of a quasi-judicial hearing is a certiorari proceeding, not a mandamus to review proceeding, and therefore "substantial evidence" rather than "arbitrary and capricious" is the standard of review

  9. Frazier v. Heebe

    482 U.S. 641 (1987)   Cited 141 times
    Holding that a significant percentage of nonresident attorneys that take the state bar examination, and pay annual dues to remain a member of the bar, will reside in locations convenient to that state

  10. Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman

    487 U.S. 59 (1988)   Cited 108 times
    Holding "that Virginia's residency requirement for admission to the State's bar without examination violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause"

  11. Section 691.10 - Conduct of disbarred, suspended or resigned attorneys; abandonment of practice by attorney

    N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 22 § 691.10   Cited 2,210 times

    (a) Compliance with Judiciary Law. Disbarred, suspended or resigned attorneys-at-law shall comply fully and completely with the letter and spirit of sections 478, 479, 484 and 486 of the Judiciary Law relating to practicing as attorneys-at-law without being admitted and registered, and soliciting of business on behalf of an attorney-at-law and the practice of law by an attorney who has been disbarred, suspended or convicted of a felony. (b) Compensation. A disbarred, suspended or resigned attorney