In Re Hansen’s Empirical Analysis
1936
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 1978
8 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on In Re Proceedings Against Richards for Disbarment · Gould v. State · In re Keenan · People Ex Rel. Chicago Bar Ass'n v. Lotterman · In re Mills
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Whether Hansen was acting in this matter as agent or as an attorney for the corporation we think is immaterial. There are decisions that make such distinction, but the great preponderance of authority 'and the sounder reasoning ’hold attorneys to the same sound practice in all transactions, whether professional or otherwise, and require of him in his private as well as his professional character the same standard of fair and upright dealing. This rule is founded on the unimpeachable ground that ‘as good character is an essential qualification for an admission of an attorney to the bar, he can be removed whenever he ceases to possess such character’ (6 C. J. 584), and is supported by numerous decisions. State ex rel. Hartman v. Cadwell, 16 Mont. 119 , 40 P. 176, 181 ; In re Wellcome, 23 Mont. 140 , 58 P. 45 ; Id., 23 Mont. 213 , 58 P. 47 ; In re Thresher, 33 Mont. 441 , 84 P. 876, 877 , 114 Am. St. Rep. 834 , 18 Ann. Cas. 845; Bartos v. United States Dist. Court, C. C., 19 F. 2d 722 ; People ex rel. Healy v. Macauley, 230 Ill. 208 , 82 N. E. 612 , 120 Am. St. Rep. 287 ; Norfolk & Portsmouth Bar Association v. Drewry, 161 Va. 833 , 172 S. E. 282 ; In re Wilson, 79 Kan. 450 , 100 P. 75 ; Moore’s Case, 76 N. H. 227, 81 A. 703 ; In re Young, 75 N. J. L. 83, 67 A. 717 ; Matter of Kalisky, 169 App. Div. 531 , 155 N. Y. S. 550; Matter of Isaacs, 172 App. Div. 181 , 158 N. Y. S. 403; Matter of Berkeley, 174 App. Div. 205 , 160 N. Y. S. 1093; In re Holton, 36 R. I. 114, 89 A. 242 ; In”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Carlsen
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.