Joseph R. Giannini v. Manuel L. Real A. Wallace Tashima

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that lack of disparate treatment of nonresidents or recent arrivals for bar admission was “fatal” to the claim that bar admission requirement burdens right to travel
• holding that it was not “an unreasonable interference with commerce for attorneys of other states to be required to take the California bar to be able to practice in California”
• explaining that “each state is free to prescribe the qualifications for admission to practice for those lawyers who appear in its courts”
• noting that the California Bar membership requirement for a federal district court bar in California was justified in part because it allowed the district court to bring allegations of professional misconduct to the attention of the California Bar
• noting that the California Bar membership requirement for a federal district court bar in California was justified in part because it allowed the district court to bring allegations of professional misconduct to the attention of the California Bar
• holding Giannini failed to state a valid constitutional claim based on alleged procedural defects related to review of his bar exam results because the opportunity to present his claim before the California Supreme Court satisfied the minimum procedural requirements of due process

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).