State v. Alvey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 44 state decisions

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

1. ““. . . [N]o punishment is provided in the Code of Professional Responsibility. Rule 207 (n) provides that recommendations of the board as to punishment may be (1) private censure, (2) public censure, (3) suspension for a definite or indefinite period, or (4) disbarment; but the nature of the punishment is not limited to these designations. The rule provides no guidelines for categorizing acts of misconduct in any one of the suggested forms of punishment. The only limitation on punishment is the collective conscience of this court. We recognize that a pattern has developed to some extent in our disciplinary cases, and that we should strive for consistency in the exercise of our judicial judgment. . . .” (State v. Alvey, 215 Kan. 460, 466 , 524 P. 2d 747 .)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Johnson · State v. Stakes

2. ““Since it is incumbent on an attorney to know the disciplinary rules regulating his profession we must conclude that the failure of the State Board of Law Examiners to set forth the specific disciplinary rules violated by respondent cannot be a basis for avoiding discipline. This is in accord with our statement in State v. Nelson, 206 Kan. 154 , 476 P. 2d 240 : “*. . . 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.)” (p.464.) “. . . It is not incumbent on the board to notify the respondent of charges of specific acts of misconduct as long as proper notice is given of the basic factual situation out of which the charges might result. . . .” (p. 466.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Turner

3. ““ ‘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 incumbent on the board to notify the respondent of charges of specific acts of misconduct as long as proper notice is given of the basic factual situation out of which the charges might result.’ ” State v. Turner, 217 Kan. at 579-80.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Caenen