Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitdefendantjurisdictionattorneydue processwrit of certiorari
defendantattorneywrit of certiorari

Related Cases

Carlough v. Amchem Products, Inc., 10 F.3d 189, 62 USLW 2377
View Case »
Ali v. Tolbert, 636 F.3d 622, 394 U.S.App.D.C. 325
View Case »
Salmon v. Atkinson, 355 Ark. 325, 137 S.W.3d 383
View Case »
Koch v. Specialized Care Services, Inc., 437 F.Supp.2d 362
View Case »
Fox & Associates Co., L.P.A. v. Purdon, 44 Ohio St.3d 69, 541 N.E.2d 448, 58 USLW 2095
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Mothershed v. Justices of Supreme Court, 410 F.3d 602, 2005-1 Trade Cases P 74,826, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4749, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6563

Facts

In 1999, the State Bar of Arizona initiated disciplinary proceedings against George L. Mothershed for allegedly practicing law unlawfully in Arizona. Mothershed contested the proceedings, claiming he had not received a summons, and subsequently refused to participate, leading to a default judgment and censure by the Arizona Supreme Court. Following this, the Oklahoma Bar Association disbarred him for similar reasons. Mothershed then filed a lawsuit in federal court against various state and Oklahoma officials, alleging due process violations and challenging the validity of the state bar admission requirements.

In 1999, the State Bar of Arizona initiated disciplinary proceedings against George L. Mothershed for allegedly practicing law unlawfully in Arizona.

Issue

Whether a disbarred attorney may collaterally attack his state bar disciplinary proceedings in federal court.

Whether a disbarred attorney may collaterally attack his state bar disciplinary proceedings in federal court.

Rule

The Rooker–Feldman doctrine prohibits lower federal courts from reviewing state court decisions, and state court litigants can only obtain federal review through a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court.

The Rooker–Feldman doctrine prohibits lower federal courts from reviewing state court decisions, and state court litigants can only obtain federal review through a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Analysis

The court determined that Mothershed's claims fell within the Rooker–Feldman doctrine's scope, as they were essentially challenges to state court decisions regarding his disciplinary proceedings. His allegations of procedural violations did not constitute a general challenge to the state bar rules but rather specific challenges to the outcomes of his individual cases, which the federal court lacked jurisdiction to review.

The court determined that Mothershed's claims fell within the Rooker–Feldman doctrine's scope, as they were essentially challenges to state court decisions regarding his disciplinary proceedings.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the dismissal of Mothershed's claims, concluding that the Rooker–Feldman doctrine barred his challenges to the state disciplinary proceedings and that the state bar admission requirements were valid.

The court affirmed the dismissal of Mothershed's claims, concluding that the Rooker–Feldman doctrine barred his challenges to the state disciplinary proceedings and that the state bar admission requirements were valid.

Who won?

The court ruled in favor of the Arizona defendants, affirming the dismissal of Mothershed's claims based on the Rooker–Feldman doctrine.

The court ruled in favor of the Arizona defendants, affirming the dismissal of Mothershed's claims based on the Rooker–Feldman doctrine.

You must be