State v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 1998
16 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.
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Exhibit ‘A’ “Sunday, November 8, 1970. “Public Censube ‘Compliments’ Wichita Lawyer “A Wichita attorney publicly censured Saturday by the Kansas Supreme Court, says he will appeal the action to the federal courts. “James I. Nelson, 52, of 4141 Regents Lane, was censured by the high court for violations of the canons of legal ethics. “Nelson, contacted by telephone Saturday evening, said: 1 did absolutely nothing wrong and they damn well know it.’ “A Special Panel of the State Board of Law Examiners found that Nelson had solicited’ law business and had a ‘general attitude to be one of little respect for the rights and sensibilities of others, of little respect for the police and courts, and an extreme overzealousness on his part in defending his clients.’ “Nelson said he felt ‘complimented’ by the allegations. “ ‘I have very little respect for the police and the courts; that’s absolutely true. And I am very zealous in defending my clients but I do it very ethically,’ he maintained. “Asked why he disrespects police and courts, Nelson replied: ‘Because the police are headbeaters and they arrest people illegally about as often as they do legally. I think they commit more crimes per man than the worst of our criminals. “ ‘The Courts are commonly prejudiced and they’re much more concerned with who appears before them than what the facts are, and the law is.’ “The law examiners panel recommended Nelson be suspended for six months, but the entire board rejected this and recommended ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Nelson““. . . We must conclude that where the facts in connection with the charge are clearly set out in the complaint a respondent is put on notice as to what ethical violations may arise therefrom. It is not required that the complaint contain a reference to the specific canon of ethics which may have been violated.” (p. 157.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Alvey
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.