Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite In re Aulston, 918 So. 2d 461.

60 citing documents.

In Re Johnson 29 So. 3d 502 La. 2010
We have held that “only under extraordinary circumstances should there be a significant variance from the sanction imposed by the other jurisdiction.” In re: Aulston, 05-1546 (La.1/13/06), .
In Re Kanwal 24 So. 3d 189 La. 2009
In re: Aulston, 05-1546 (La.1/13/06), .
In re Nunnery 21 So. 3d 265 La. 2009
In re: Aulston, 05-1546 (La.1/13/06), .
In Re Tyrrell 998 So. 2d 83 La. 2009
In re: Aulston, 05-1546 (La.1/13/06), .
In Re Schmidt 976 So. 2d 1267 La. 2008
In re: Aulston, 05-1546 (La.1/13/06), .
In re O'Quinn 976 So. 2d 1265 La. 2008
We have held that “only under extraordinary circumstances should there be a significant variance from the sanction imposed by the other jurisdiction.” In re: Aulston, 05-1546 (La.1/13/06), .
In re Daly 967 So. 2d 1149 La. 2007
In re: Aulston, 05-1546 (La.1/13/06), .
In re Nunnery 951 So. 2d 1085 La. 2007
In re: Aulston, 05-1546 (La.1/13/06), .
In re Nalick 939 So. 2d 349 La. 2006
In In re: Aulston, 05-1546 (La.1/13/06), , we held that “only under extraordinary circumstances should there be a significant variance from the sanction imposed by the other jurisdiction.” Based on our review of the record, we Iffind no extraordinary circumstances are present in this case which would compel a variance from the Missouri sanction.
In re Jessup 922 So. 2d 467 La. 2006
In re: Aulston, 05-1546 (La.1/13/06), , we held that “only under extraordinary circumstances should there be a significant variance from the sanction imposed by the other jurisdiction.” Based on our review of the record, we find no 13extraordinary circumstances are present *469 which would compel a variance from the Tennessee sanction.