Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 151 A3D 734 - In re Segal

In re Segal’s Empirical Analysis

2016

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 108 Wash. 2d 82 - In Re the Disciplinary Proceeding Against Deming · In Re Melograne · In Re Smith · In Re Berkhimer · In Re Zupsic

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “we must reject respondent’s earlier contention that the problems here were all created by Waters and his corrupt motives. We find nothing in the record which even remotely suggests that Respondent’s misconduct was anything but fully voluntary and done to protect her own political welfare. Based on the overwhelming nature of the evidence in this case by way of the wiretapped conversations, and in light of the clear mandates of the canons and constitutional provisions, we conclude that Respondent’s conduct shows she knowingly acted in derogation of the judicial canons and, therefore, her actions amounted to willful misconduct. It cannot be reasonably disputed that Respondent was approached by a corrupt judge. However, rather than refuse to participate in his requests, she complied and willfully engaged in the ex parte appeals that he extended. As we have said in more detail in prior decisions, when it comes to corrupt acts and the derogation of a fair and just judicial process, a judge must have “the willingness to stand up for what [is] right and buck a corrupt tide.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “conduct which prejudices the proper administration of justice.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.