In Re Lord

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that despite Attorney General’s status as executive officer he is subject to discipline process and that unethical conduct in court “involves something resting entirely with the judicial branch”
• “the executive shall have no power to interfere with the courts in the performance of judicial functions”
• \the executive shall have no power to interfere with the courts in the performance of judicial functions\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1999-01-28· cited 69×
• Matter of Frerichs
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 1976-02-18· cited 36×
• In Re Disciplinary Action Against Ruhland
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1989-07-07· cited 28×
• Marriage of Holmberg v. Holmberg
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1998-06-12· cited 25×
• Wersal v. Sexton
  Eighth Circuit· 2012-03-27· cited 23×
• State Ex Rel. Foster v. City of Kansas City
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 1960-03-05· cited 23×
• In Re Proposed Petition to Recall Hatch
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 2001-06-25· cited 9×
• In Re Daly
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1969-09-05· cited 8×
• State v. Lussier
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2005-05-10· cited 3×
• In re a Writ of Habeas Corpus for Green
  Ohio Supreme Court· 1961-05-17

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• In Re Oliver
  Supreme Court· 1948-03-08· cited 2,065×
• Cooke v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1925-04-13· cited 880×
• Hovey v. Elliott
  Supreme Court· 1897-05-24· cited 485×
• Cammer v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1956-03-12· cited 133×
• State Ex Rel. Minnesota Amusement Co. v. County Board of Ramsey County Commissioners
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1959-05-08· cited 2×