1 minute read

Supreme Court of Virginia v. Friedman

Significance, Higher Courts' Decisions, Higher Courts' Decisions Affirmed, Impact, Privileges And Immunities Clause: Residency Requirements


Supreme Court of Virginia, et al.


Myrna E. Friedman, et al.

Appellant's Claim

The Virginia Supreme Court Rule 1A:1 required an applicant to be a resident of Virginia for admission to the Virginia Bar. Appellants claimed that this residency requirement did not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution.

Chief Lawyer for Appellant

Gregory E. Lucyk

Chief Lawyer for Appellee

Cornish F. Hitchcock

Justices for the Court

Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy (writing for the Court), Thurgood Marshall, Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting

William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia


Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

20 June 1988


The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals decision that the residency requirement of the Virginia Rule violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

Related Cases

  • Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall 418 (1871).
  • Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973).
  • Baldwin v. Montana Fish & Game Comm., 436 U.S. 371 (1978).
  • Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518 (1978).
  • Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274 (1985).


West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1998.

Further Readings

  • Illinois State Bar Association. "ISBA Advisory Opinion on Professional Conduct." Courts Bulletin and Opinions. 1997. http://www.illinoisbar.org/CourtsBull/EthicsOpinions/92-06.html.

Additional topics

Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1981 to 1988