Legal Opinion
Paciulan v. George
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided October 17, 2000No. 99-15687PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Per curiam
Appellants Richard J. Paciulan and William A. Kruse sued defendants, Justices of the California Supreme Court and individuals from the State Bar of California, challenging the constitutionality of California’s rules regulating pro hac vice admission to practice in California courts, as codified in California Rule of Court 983 (“Rule 983”).1 The district court, in a well-reasoned and comprehensive opinion, dismissed their complaint and enjoined Appellants’ attorney, Joseph R. Giannini, from filing future suits in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Perry v. SindermannSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Butchers' Benevolent Ass'n v. Crescent City Live-Stock Landing & Slaughter-House Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1873
- Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Smith v. MarshCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Steckman v. Hart Brewing, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Juan Valdez v. Mark A. Rosenbaum Al Terrault Julie Latuska Bill Parker George Gore Debbie Miller Allen CooperCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Baldwin v. Trailer Inns, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Panatronic Usa, a California General Partnership Lemar Textile Co. v. At&t CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- National Ass'n for the Advancement of Multijurisdiction Practice v. BerchCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Manley v. Texas Southern UniversityDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 2015
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.